NHBC's Adrian Evans gives evidence about the organization's acceptance of Kingspan K15 based on BBA certificates, reliance on manufacturer approvals, and failure to independently verify fire safety compliance.
00:21:51 would you ask mr evans to come back in jason
00:22:08 all right mr evans i'm ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes yes mr chairman thank you very much mr evans we will come back in due course to the dealings you had with kingspan but i'd like to turn to the bba certificates
00:22:20 i'd like to turn to the bba certificates for k-15 can we start please with your witness statement at page 17 and look together at paragraphs 51 52 and 53 on that page
00:22:31 52 and 53 on that page this sits under the heading the use of combustible insulation material in materials in buildings with a story over 18 meters and you say this at 51 the issues with combustible insulation in particular kingspan's k-15 are raised in
00:22:44 particular kingspan's k-15 are raised in late 2013. prior to those issues are rising nhbc's position on accepting k-15 on buildings over 18 meters was that there was a current bba or
00:22:55 was that there was a current bba or british board of agreement bba certificate for the product indicating it was acceptable for use in accordance with approved document b subject to advice being sought from the certificate holder
00:23:07 certificate holder therefore providing kingspan gave appropriate confirmation nhbc would deem that the builder had demonstrated compliance with the building regulations and accept the use of k15 on projects
00:23:18 and accept the use of k15 on projects over 18 meters subject to it passing in hbc's other site-specific checks this was on the basis that regulation seven of the building regulations permitted reliance on independent
00:23:29 permitted reliance on independent product certification schemes in the uk to accept the use of a material if we go over the page we initially retained this approach
00:23:40 we initially retained this approach whilst engaging with kingspan until the change set out at paragraph 105 below i cannot say why bba set this requirement but once nhbc received kingspen's confirmation the builder had complied
00:23:51 confirmation the builder had complied with the terms of the bba certificate and we'll come back a little bit later to your statement which deals with events that took place in 2015 in relation to kingspan and the
00:24:03 in 2015 in relation to kingspan and the t and the technical guidance note but just looking at these paragraphs mr evans from what date up until february 2015
00:24:12 2015 was the policy that you described there the policy at nhbc
00:24:19 sorry from the date it started yes uh
00:24:22 uh as far as i'm aware from when the bba certificate would would have been issued right so and that was 2008 27th of october 2008 yes yes yes and we'll come to the
00:24:33 2008 yes yes yes and we'll come to the document in a moment but just to be clear is it right therefore that every scheme which proposed to use or did use k15 that came to the nhbc either for
00:24:44 that came to the nhbc either for warranty purposes or for building control services um until february 2015 was considered acceptable for you subject to kingspan giving appropriate confirmation
00:24:57 giving appropriate confirmation if it was being assessed in line with the bbo certificate yes
00:25:03 and that was because of is this right you say in line with the term was that because of the precise terms of the bba certificate yes
00:25:15 now you say in your statement that you didn't know why the bba included the wording about contacting the manufacturer did you ever contact them and discuss it with them i didn't know
00:25:26 i didn't know why is that uh i wasn't the primary contact with bba i understand that colleagues at nhpc uh did subsequently make contact with bba
00:25:37 bba colleagues being dave white i think dave white graham perrier right and when was that
00:25:42 was that that would have been um in 2014.
00:25:47 why not earlier
00:25:54 the matter only came to my attention in 2013. i can't say for why it wasn't raised earlier let's go to bba 60s 38 please this is the certificate
00:26:08 and if we look at the first page
00:26:12 we can see that it is a grammar certificate zero eight four five eight two
00:26:17 two it will be familiar to the panel i think from module two of this inquiry and the subject matter is in kingspan insulation cool foam k15
00:26:29 cool foam k15 product scope and summary of certificate there on the left this certificate relates to coolthone k15 rain screen insulation board a rigid phenolic board with foil composite facings for use as external thermal insulation on new and
00:26:42 external thermal insulation on new and existing steel frame or masonry walls the board is used in domestic and non-domestic buildings in conjunction with masonry or weather-like ventilated cladding systems then if you look down please if we
00:26:54 then if you look down please if we scroll down to the lower part of page one
00:26:56 one we see first under key factors assessed the third item their behavior in relation to fire the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or presenter smoke or toxic
00:27:08 a fire or presenter smoke or toxic hazard c-section seven and then if you look at the very bottom of the page bottom of the screen date of first issue 2008 see that there so that's the date of the
00:27:21 see that there so that's the date of the certificate and if we go to page five we could see section seven which is referred to under one of the key factors assessed i just showed you section seven behavior in relation to
00:27:32 section seven behavior in relation to fire the following fire tests have been undertaken to bs 8414 part 1 2002 we have the first bullet point you see that i do
00:27:42 i do and um
00:27:44 and um can i take it without reading it all to you that it's familiar to you yes it is
00:27:51 yes it is and
00:27:52 and that is a reference i think back to the test that was done by kingsman in 2005. do you know do you know that or i believe so yes right and then if we go to 7.2
00:28:03 and then if we go to 7.2 the product is classified as class nought although risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of england and wales approved document b
00:28:15 england and wales approved document b paragraph eight point four volume one and paragraphs twelve point five and twelve point six volume two see also diagram forty see that
00:28:26 that i do yes yeah no reference there to twelve point seven yes no
00:28:32 no yes
00:28:32 yes no
00:28:34 no but 12.5 and 12.6 in diagram 40.
00:28:40 uh and
00:28:44 just just then going back if we can before we look at 7.3 uh to the to the tests that were carried out
00:28:53 out at 7.1
00:28:55 at 7.1 um we can see the specific build up there
00:28:58 there in detail yes yes what did you understand the significance of that part of this certificate to be
00:29:08 that was a description of the test which was undertaken which bba
00:29:13 then looked at
00:29:16 looked at and made the statements they do in their certificate yeah and what was your view what was nhbc's view so far as you knew about the significance of the precise details set out in that part of the certificate
00:29:32 this it illustrated that the the material had been tested yes
00:29:39 yes anything else
00:29:41 um i think my view at that time was an initial reading until we had um was that it had been tested to the 28414 right
00:29:52 to the 28414 right and then you can see a second test uh which is the test en 1364 part one which is a fire resistance test for non-load-bearing walls yes yes yes
00:30:03 non-load-bearing walls yes yes yes so did you understand this section 7.1 and the two tests there to mean that there had only been one successful bs-8414 test on k-15 by the time this certificate was
00:30:14 by the time this certificate was released in 2008 and there is the details of the build-up
00:30:19 build-up for the purposes of that test i understood that those are the tests which bba had examined as part of pulling the certificate together yes and you would have understood is this right that that was under part 1 2002 masonry
00:30:31 that that was under part 1 2002 masonry not part 2 2005 steel frame yes so would you have understood at all times that the certificate did not cover the application of kingspan k15 on a stale steel framed external wall
00:30:44 on a stale steel framed external wall buildup
00:30:50 the the certificate that i was looking at when we when i started to look at this in 2013 was the 2010 revision so there is a later revision of this certificate we'll come to the next one
00:31:03 certificate we'll come to the next one take it from me from the evidence we explored with the bba at module 2 that this
00:31:10 that this was the certificate that was extant until
00:31:13 until the summer of 2000 of 2013.
00:31:20 you think there was something else i believe there was a further revision to this there are revisions during 2013 we'll come to them yeah i don't want there to be any confusion but i believe the later revision introduced the
00:31:31 the later revision introduced the paragraph 12.7 you are right but that was not until july 2013. okay but but we'll come to it let's not get ahead i just want to to be clear though because
00:31:42 because between the time of the issue of this certificate in october 20 2008 and the later revision introducing 12.7 to which we will come you understood i'm putting to you that
00:31:54 you understood i'm putting to you that there had only been one successful bs-8414 test on k-15 and that was under part one
00:32:01 part one masonry i'm not part two steel frames that's correct and therefore there was no basis on which the bba certificate covered the application of k-15 above 18
00:32:12 covered the application of k-15 above 18 meters in an external wall build up on a steel frame structure
00:32:19 on this certificate yes and given that you were only working on the certificate and not doing your own investigations um the nhbc's position ought to have been never to have approved any uh k-15
00:32:30 been never to have approved any uh k-15 above 18 meters on a steel frame structure no if we can go to the second page of the certificate please yes and we'll come to that in a moment but just looking at this any departure from the precise form of this test would
00:32:43 from the precise form of this test would have taken it outside the 8414 route compliance wouldn't it it would yes yes thank you now let's turn to the next page please please paragraph 7.2 and that which i've shown you
00:32:55 and coming back to 7.2 paragraph 12.5 i think you understood to be that part of approved document b which provided that external walls should meet the guidance in 12.6 to 12.9 yes
00:33:08 the guidance in 12.6 to 12.9 yes yes
00:33:08 yes uh
00:33:09 uh or alternatively meet the performance criteria
00:33:12 criteria uh in br135 yes yes yes uh and uh 12.6 um
00:33:19 um is is um the external walls having to meet the provisions of diagram 40 yes yes yes so we understood you understood that
00:33:28 that then if you look at 7.3 towards the top of page 5 it says this in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder
00:33:40 be sought from the certificate holder the certificate holder was kingspan wasn't it it was yes yeah and
00:33:45 and going back then to paragraph 52 of your statement which we've just seen at page 17
00:33:51 17 you tell us i think is this right that you took this clause 7.3 here in the bba certificate as meaning that you had to ask kingspan for as you put it appropriate confirmation
00:34:03 it appropriate confirmation before deeming that the builder had demonstrated compliance with the building regulations is that right it's not the case that i had to ask them it was the case that the builder had to ask them
00:34:14 ask them so the builder would seek seek the advice from kingspan and that would be the information that they would provide to us as the to us or any other building control body to demonstrate compliance i see
00:34:30 what was appropriate confirmation
00:34:35 [Music] a letter from kingspan we would have taken a letter from kingspan verifying they've looked at the design and they were happy for that material to be used over 18 meters
00:34:46 be used over 18 meters did the nhbc ever stipulate what the um technical content or methodology for the appropriate confirmation was to be before it would be accepted by the
00:34:57 be before it would be accepted by the nhpc
00:35:00 there was no set criteria no why not because we would leave it to the professional skill and judgment of the surveyor
00:35:08 surveyor who was reviewing that um in terms of whether they had that enough information for them to be satisfied that that was the bba the conditions in the bb certificate have been met
00:35:28 well what skill and judgment was required uh either um
00:35:32 um kingspan was going to be a material of limited combustibility which it wasn't so that would only leave an a414 test exactly in accordance uh with the buildup specified at 7.1 what else would
00:35:43 buildup specified at 7.1 what else would there be
00:35:52 i don't recall seeing any of those any of those letters from or for any documentation from kingspan i can't verify not at this stage no did you ever investigate who
00:36:04 did you ever investigate who as a matter of course within kingspan would be giving these appropriate confirmations
00:36:11 no i didn't what about making sure they had the appropriate qualifications to provide these
00:36:16 these appropriate confirmations no i didn't did the nhbc when obtaining this approval or or rather uh ensuring that its builders obtain that approval ever seek to ensure that that the person
00:36:28 seek to ensure that that the person giving the approval at kingspan had relevant fire safety experience training and knowledge
00:36:35 not that i'm aware of no why not
00:36:41 we would have been i um we would have looked to see if it was from the technical department um and i feel that would have been accepted at that time right and and can we assume that these
00:36:53 and and can we assume that these confirmations would not be in respect of exactly the same build up as the one tested and described in detail in 7.1 in the certificate but different build-ups
00:37:03 it could well be yes
00:37:06 so to be clear was it nhbc's policy to treat k-15 a a combustible material as compliant for use above 18 meters and
00:37:18 as compliant for use above 18 meters and warrant its use solely in reliance on the approval of its manufacturer
00:37:30 it would have been accepted in accordance with the conditions within the bba certificate which yes i can see in terms of that that yes a letter from the manufacturer would have been sufficient let's break that up were you
00:37:42 sufficient let's break that up were you ever aware of uh nhbc accepting a buildup which was in the real world build that which was in precisely in accordance with the build up as tested as described in
00:37:55 build up as tested as described in detail at paragraph 7.1 of the certificate
00:38:00 i'm not a i'm not aware but that doesn't mean to say that there isn't there isn't any
00:38:04 any no you're not aware of any uh and therefore most if not all of those buildups would have been different and therefore would it follow from that that in accepting
00:38:15 that in accepting uh
00:38:16 uh the advice from the certificate holder nhbc was relying solely in respect of a rig that differed from the rig described in 7.1 solely on
00:38:27 from the rig described in 7.1 solely on the say-so of its own manufacturer
00:38:35 i would say not solely on that because um the bba certificate which was from a trusted organization um
00:38:44 um was saying that in those buildings over 18 meters
00:38:47 18 meters they
00:38:48 they you know the advice for them was that they or the condition of that condition was that advice should be sought from the certificate holder did an hpc ever investigate for itself the basis
00:38:57 the basis on which kingspan was giving these approvals where these rigs differed as they did from the rig as tested not that i'm aware of now why not
00:39:14 it would not necessarily been the focus at this time well given that kingspan was making and selling k-15 could you just explain how its own approval of the use of its own
00:39:25 its own approval of the use of its own product on a project would have been any kind of reliable indicator of its compliance with adb
00:39:38 that would be a question for the bba no it's a question for the nhbc isn't it who is relying on the certificate and also relying on advice to be sought from the certificate holder and if all you've
00:39:49 the certificate holder and if all you've got is advice from the certificate holder
00:39:52 holder namely kingspan who is making and selling its own product how is that reliable
00:39:58 reliable where is the independent analysis of the fire safety of this material
00:40:11 if the surveyor thought that it was unsafe at that time and not being used in accordance with a certificate the surveyor could raise that with the with the builder but this was a product which for a
00:40:23 but this was a product which for a number of years we'd seen being used on buildings and it was a familiar product
00:40:30 product that was accepted whether you were you know a local authority an approved inspector
00:40:35 inspector so it was something which we were familiar with seeing perhaps it was just taken that right they'd meet the the bba certificate if it met the conditions under that
00:40:46 under that that it was the case was it the thought processes in hbc at the time that because it was familiar it was safe and because it was familiar it was compliant was that was that the thinking
00:40:58 it must be all right because everybody else uses it
00:41:03 i think this is this is one material on the building which contains thousands and thousands of materials and those that you're familiar with and have seen in a number of instances before
00:41:15 before yes there can be assumptions made that somebody else has perhaps looked at it didn't anyone at the nhbc recognize at the time
00:41:23 the time that it was underwriting by through the warranty and accepting as compliant through building control services the use of a combustible product in an external wall over 18 meters
00:41:34 external wall over 18 meters on the untested and unexamined say so of the manufacturer of that very product
00:41:45 not that i'm aware of until we started to to look at this in 2013. yes and was that not a glaringly obviously dangerous approach not only for the nhbc reputation
00:41:56 reputation and financially but to the health and safety of the occupants of these buildings
00:42:08 i can see where you where how you can you can see that i i can arrive at that conclusion but there's still no at that point there was still nothing to say that those buildings were dangerous
00:42:19 buildings were dangerous because if those configurations it had been used we'd had there's nothing to say if those configurations had been tested
00:42:26 tested that they wouldn't be demonstrated to be safe
00:42:29 safe indeed but you had no way of knowing that did you no no did you ever discuss this approvals practice with wintec for example do you know i didn't know do you know do you know
00:42:40 i didn't know do you know do you know whether anybody did i don't i'm not aware of
00:42:46 now we've seen in module two of this inquiry some examples of the confirmations that kingspan was providing to customers about the use of their their products and we i hope i'm doing them no disservice
00:42:58 we i hope i'm doing them no disservice to say that they were simply kingspan headed letters that said in their opinion k-15 could be used in the proposed build-up would that be is my description of them generic though it be generally correct
00:43:14 the ones i've seen have got a little bit more technical information in them as to why they believe that they're correct right well let's let's look at your statement page 17 please apparently if we do that can i just
00:43:25 we do that can i just ask this did it occur to anyone that it was rather odd to have this self-certification provision in 7-3 limited to buildings over 18 meters i
00:43:37 limited to buildings over 18 meters i mean it's a curious thing to find doesn't it
00:43:42 until 2013 i i can't
00:43:47 i i can't i wasn't i didn't question it um
00:43:50 um and to be fair to be honest to be fair before 2013 i
00:43:56 i wasn't familiar with the bbo certificate for kingspan k15
00:44:02 k15 right yeah it's the sort of thing one might have thought of severe might perhaps
00:44:06 perhaps have
00:44:08 have seen as being a bit unusual
00:44:12 um yes
00:44:15 yes but
00:44:15 but at the time the focus of the industry was very much on thermal efficiency the drive from government was very much on thermal efficiency changes to the u-values
00:44:26 efficiency changes to the u-values and the thermal efficiency of walls in many cases the only way you could achieve that was to use this type of insulation so it was a familiar product which
00:44:37 so it was a familiar product which was introduced was seen and
00:44:40 and you know with with lots of things if you see it a lot sometimes it's just accepted as that's the that's the norm right yes thank you yes mr sorry to interrupt you no no it's not um can we
00:44:51 interrupt you no no it's not um can we then go back to paragraph 52 of your statement
00:44:54 statement page 17
00:44:56 page 17 and i've read it to you before i just want to examine something in it six lines up from the bottom of the page
00:45:03 page um you say therefore you see that and then you talk about the appropriate confirmation and then if you turn um
00:45:12 um sorry and if you go to the very bottom of the page you say this was on the basis that regulation seven of the building regulations permitted reliance on independent product certification schemes in the uk to accept the use of a
00:45:23 schemes in the uk to accept the use of a material
00:45:25 material you see that yes uh now it is what you're referring to there the certification of products by the bba
00:45:34 the bba accredited as they were at the time by ucas the united kingdom accreditation service
00:45:41 service yes that would be one of the third party certification schemes and therefore are you saying therefore that nhbc felt that they could rely on what was written on a bba certificate
00:45:52 what was written on a bba certificate yes
00:45:52 yes now regulation seven um it's right i think isn't it that it permitted reliance on independent certification schemes
00:46:00 schemes but not reliance on the manufacturer's self-certification that's right isn't it yes that's correct
00:46:09 indeed you might ask did you ask well how come the bba is an independent certification at all given that all it's doing is referring you back to the manufacturer
00:46:21 yes you did i can i can see how you can look at that yeah but the question i've just asked you was that a question you asked yourself or the nhbc asked itself corporately before 2013.
00:46:36 no the assumption would have been that bba had
00:46:39 bba had assessed the information that had been provided with in making their assessment and they were comfortable in making that statement to refer to the manufacturer well let's
00:46:50 to refer to the manufacturer well let's look at regulation 7 then because you rely on it it's at inq three zeros one four nine three zero
00:47:02 now what i'm showing you here is the 2013 edition
00:47:08 and it's called approved document seven regulation seven just just looking at it on its face is this what you are referring to when you refer to regulation seven yes yes and if
00:47:19 refer to regulation seven yes yes and if we go to page ten in this document uh we can see regulation seven of the building regulation first of all set out and it refers to materials and
00:47:31 and it refers to materials and workmanship and you can see it on the screen there um there's nothing about independent certification there but
00:47:38 but if we go to page 13 of this document help me
00:47:44 help me you can see there and there's a heading in the middle of your screen independent certification schemes
00:47:50 schemes and you can see paragraphs 1.15 and 1.16 is that what you're referring to in your witness statement when you refer to regulation seven yes it is right now let's look at those
00:48:01 yes it is right now let's look at those in detail 115 says this there are many independent product certification schemes in the uk and elsewhere that may provide information on the performance of a product such schemes certify that a
00:48:12 of a product such schemes certify that a material complies with the requirements of a recognized document and indicates it is suitable for its intended purpose and use these may be in addition to but not conflict with ce marking note
00:48:24 not conflict with ce marking note materials which are not certified by an independent scheme might still conform to a relevant standard and then 116 says this accreditation of a certification body by a national
00:48:35 a certification body by a national accreditation body belonging to the european cooperation for accreditation ea
00:48:40 ea provides a means of demonstrating that their certification scheme can be relied upon in the uk most independent certification bodies are accredited by the united kingdom accreditation service ucas which belongs to the ea
00:48:52 ucas which belongs to the ea it is important to check the scope of the accreditation of a certification body as accreditation might only cover part of the certification body's testing or certification business
00:49:03 or certification business now
00:49:04 now are you able to explain how those independent certification schemes are relevant to whether the nhbc should have been accepting k-15 as part of an external wall build up based on a confirmation letter from kingspan
00:49:22 on reading that if it was solely from the confirmation of kingspan i can see how you can you can say that yes you can say no i think yes
00:49:33 no i think yes and there's nothing about these schemes which cuts across or undermines is there the the need to comply with the functional requirement b4 of the building regulations on external fire spread
00:49:44 spread no no and it's not right is it that you can satisfy yourself that a product or material complies with the requirements of section 12 of adb merely by relying on a certificate from an accredited
00:49:55 on a certificate from an accredited certification body which directs you back to the manufacturer
00:50:00 and then in turn rely on what the manufacturer tells you
00:50:05 the assumption would have been that
00:50:10 that bba
00:50:11 bba were satisfied when they made that statement in there um
00:50:15 um in their certificate that on buildings over 18 meters they would be satisfied um that builders could go back to the manufacturer did the absurdity of that conclusion not strike you at the time
00:50:29 conclusion not strike you at the time at the time i started to look at this issue in 2013 yes that's why i raised questions with kingsman but never before that never before that no
00:50:40 personally
00:50:45 in fact if we go back to the bba certificate please at [Music]
00:50:50 [Music] bba6038
00:50:54 uh yes thank you and please go back please go to page six
00:51:03 you you can see
00:51:06 at 7.3 it says in buildings with a floor more than 80 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder advice it doesn't does it say that the
00:51:17 advice it doesn't does it say that the certificate holder could could approve the use of k15 in external wall buildups which diverged from the build up tested as described in 7.1 does it
00:51:28 it doesn't know no so how could the nhbc possibly offered it
00:51:37 i think the whole industry accepted the bba certificate on that basis it wasn't just nhvc
00:51:44 just nhvc or building control bodies as we've seen did you know of any other building control body that interpreted the bba certificate in that way and followed the same practice
00:51:55 many of my colleagues myself included would have worked for other approved inspectors or other local authorities other billionaire bodies when they before they came to an hpc and would have brought that customer and
00:52:06 and would have brought that customer and practice with them given the market share
00:52:09 share that nhbc had and its influence in the industry why was nhbc content to follow what other building control officers were doing i wasn't taking a lead on this
00:52:21 i wasn't taking a lead on this we did start to take a lead on that in 2013.
00:52:24 2013. in 2013 yes some
00:52:27 some six years after five years after the issue of this certificate and for some years after k-15 was being applied routinely above 18 meters in build-ups different from the one covered by the certificate yes
00:52:40 by the certificate yes yes but we did take a lead are you sure that regulation 7 was really the basis of the approach you've been taking up to 2013 as opposed to a next post facto rationalization
00:52:53 sorry can you yes sorry rephrase that yes um are you sure mr evans as you sit here today that regulation seven was really
00:53:00 really the um thinking that led you to accept king span say-so in relation to k-15 above 18 meters or is this just an after the fact
00:53:11 is this just an after the fact rationalization throughout my building control career um i've always accepted bba certificates for materials as demonstrating compliance
00:53:24 as demonstrating compliance so it's not a there was no thought in terms of that it was purely it's customer practice within building control that a third-party
00:53:35 building control that a third-party certification for a material verifies its use in those circumstances do you accept that a builder couldn't comply with the provisions of sections 12.5 to 12.9 of the proof document b by leaving
00:53:47 12.9 of the proof document b by leaving it to the manufacturer to bless the use of a combustible product above 18 meters on a case-by-case basis
00:53:56 i accept that in order for their builders to demonstrate compliance for that use of that material above 18 meters they needed to seek advice from the certificate holder no that's not my question um let me try it slightly
00:54:08 question um let me try it slightly differently do you accept that simply by going to the manufacturer and asking them whether it's okay as opposed to complying with the provisions of 12.5 to 12.9 of approved
00:54:19 provisions of 12.5 to 12.9 of approved document b do you accept that by doing that you are setting the whole regulatory regime at naught
00:54:31 i can see how that can appear yes now we've been through in detail to date the concerns that your colleagues at nhbc were raising as early as august 2013 which culminated in the with the meeting
00:54:43 which culminated in the with the meeting in wintec and then the genesis of what became technical guidance note 18. there's no mention in anything we've seen so far about kingspan's advice being sought on each buildup anywhere in
00:54:56 being sought on each buildup anywhere in those those discussions um that we've seen in the documents casting your mind back do you know whether there was any internal discussion at hbc about what
00:55:08 about what approvals or what advice had been given by kingspan in relation to build-ups about 18 meters that diverged from the
00:55:16 from the bill that we see described at 7.1 of the certificate sorry i'm just going to clarify there is a there is a certificate for kingspan k15 dated 2010.
00:55:29 kingspan k15 dated 2010. there is a revision on this certificate dating to 2010.
00:55:36 yes and so can we could could could we look at that because that does actually um yeah i'll show it to you now it's bb-8 6-0 is 37.
00:55:46 all right this is the one forgive me mr evans if this isn't the document that you're after this is 084582 and if you look at the foot of this of the page
00:55:57 the page 27th of october 2008 certificate amended 6th of april 2010. yes you see that yes now that certificate was published in fact by the bba on the 12th of july 2013.
00:56:09 2013. we've established that already and for those who want to see the evidence in support of that and i can certainly show you mr evans it's john alban's statement uh bba3010751
00:56:22 paragraph 12 bottom of page 15. would you like to see it no i'm just i'm confused because when i was looking at the certificate in 2013 this was a certificate i was looking at
00:56:35 this was a certificate i was looking at and that certificate this certificate if we can go to the yes the relevant section within the the certificate which then refers to the behavior in relation to fire that specifically includes reference to
00:56:47 that specifically includes reference to paragraph 12.7 it does page five let's go there
00:56:53 now you can see there it is 7.2 well to start seven point seven behavior in relation to fire seven point one is class naught and then seven point two in buildings
00:57:04 and then seven point two in buildings with the floor more than eighteen meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder so that's still there you see yeah and then 7.5
00:57:15 uh deals with the fire tests uh but if you look back um up at 7.1 i've shown you the scheme of it 7.1 under england and wales says
00:57:26 7.1 under england and wales says approved document b paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and paragraph 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 at volume 2 see also diagram 40.
00:57:38 see also diagram 40. you see that i do yes so my understanding was that this was published in 2010 so when i
00:57:47 so when i began looking at the certificate in 2013 when i started to look at this issue this was the certificate i was referring back to
00:57:55 back to so in my statement where i'm making statements about the bba certificate this is the certificate i'm referring to i understand i understand um did you not want to see the certificates
00:58:06 did you not want to see the certificates earlier than 2013. no
00:58:10 no well
00:58:11 well yes
00:58:12 yes but in terms of my witness statement to my involvement with the combustible insulation issue that began in 2013 and this was the relevant certificate that time so
00:58:24 yes i follow that now um let's just let's then work on the basis as you've told us that you when you first came to this problem we're looking at this piece of paper this document
00:58:35 this piece of paper this document um let's just take it in stages then uh first we as i've shown you you can see that it still retains at 7.2
00:58:44 at 7.2 the requirement for advice to be sought from the certificate holder yes so you saw that at the time and looking at 7.1 as we have it includes for the first time but you're perhaps
00:58:55 for the first time but you're perhaps not to know that at this stage 12.7 now presumably is this right that you knew
00:59:01 knew in july 2013 when you first saw this document that clause 12.7 of adb provides that an insulation material must be of limited combustibility as defined
00:59:13 defined if it's to be used in external wall constructions higher than 18 meters you must have known that yes right and did you notice the presence of 12.7
00:59:25 the presence of 12.7 when you first saw this document yes what did you think it was doing there
00:59:31 the question i asked myself at that time was
00:59:33 was why are bba um making that statement and was that because you knew that as a phenolic product k-15 was most
00:59:45 that as a phenolic product k-15 was most certainly not a material of limited combustibility and such as such could never satisfy 12.7
00:59:53 my view was the information i had at that time my understanding was it wasn't a material limited combustibility but it not only wasn't couldn't because it was phenolic
01:00:04 it was phenolic that was why i asked the question to be asked of kingspan what information are they provided to bba for bba to seemingly from this certificate be classing it as a material
01:00:16 certificate be classing it as a material of limited combustibility or allowing its use
01:00:20 its use in situations where insulation needed to be a material limited combustibility but it's not really a question which can omit of any answer other than it's an error surely
01:00:32 well i'd like as a as a technical person i like to establish the facts before i make an instant an instant reaction well all right but have you ever come across a phenolic product which was which was a material
01:00:43 product which was which was a material of limited combustibility at that time no no now um chris hunt of the bba told us and for those who want to see it it's day 109 at page 58
01:00:54 109 at page 58 that he thought the introduction of the reference to 12.7 there was to indicate the acceptability of k-15 within a masonry cavity wall construction by a way of exception to the application
01:01:06 by a way of exception to the application of 12.7 i i take it from your answers up to this point that that was not something that the nhbc understood at the time
01:01:14 the time i don't think it was nhbc's or the industry's interpretation of that at that time no thank you now uh it's extremely difficult isn't it to extract that meaning from the bald reference to 12.7
01:01:25 12.7 yes did you contact the bba about this obvious error i didn't
01:01:31 i didn't at first i requested john lewis to contact kingspan right i mean given the the prominence you you've given in your statement to regulation seven and given the
01:01:42 regulation seven and given the prominence you've given in your evidence to the reliance on the certificate in accepting kingspan above 18 meters why didn't the nhbc get straight onto the bba and ask them what 12.7 was doing
01:01:53 the bba and ask them what 12.7 was doing in this certificate
01:01:59 my chosen route was to approach kingspan at that time why
01:02:05 i felt i the i wanted from from kingspan the information that they provided with bb they provided to bba for bba to make
01:02:16 bb they provided to bba for bba to make that statement but you weren't relying on king's bat well you were but you're relying primarily on the certificate and and so why not go as your first positive call to the bba and say
01:02:27 positive call to the bba and say surely 12.7 is a mistake can you just explain it to me at that time i didn't know it was a mistake you must have known it was a mistake with great respect this is a phenolic product couldn't possibly be a material of limited combustibility
01:02:41 material of limited combustibility at that time i didn't know it was a mistake i wanted to understand why bba
01:02:47 bba had put that in there so i felt by approaching kingspan or we felt by approaching kingspan they would be able to provide us with that information in fact they may be able to provide us for more information that
01:02:58 provide us for more information that demonstrated how it could be used in those circumstances
01:03:15 did the nhbc change its acceptance of k-15 based on the inclusion of 12.7 in this certificate
01:03:30 i don't think so no i don't understand that i don't understand the question sorry well did the nhbc now seeing that 12.7 was there
01:03:39 there in this certificate on which nhbc had historically relied then say to itself well that's all right we can accept k-15 above 18 meters without any test data at all
01:03:52 the way our interpretation of the bba certificate was that providing advice was sought from the certificate holder the material could be used
01:04:01 used over 18 meters and satisfied uh the building regulations uh in accordance with 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 well let's see then how this develops within nhbc
01:04:13 within nhbc um i'd like to look at what guidance you gave to your technical staff uh in december 2013. so before
01:04:22 so before the
01:04:23 the um
01:04:24 um i say before while the 7.2 in this certificate was still there that said advice should be sought from the certificate holder i'd like to look at that now um can we
01:04:35 i'd like to look at that now um can we go please to nhb 50615
01:04:41 so what i'm looking at to be clear with you mr evans is the period between the introduction of 12.7 in 7.1 and the removal in the next edition of
01:04:52 and the removal in the next edition of the bba certificate of the reference to contact the manufacturer which happened in the december of that year so we're looking at that that five month period and this email run is
01:05:03 month period and this email run is within that period you see it's early december 2013 and if we go to the bottom of the chain halfway down page two we can see your email to john lewis
01:05:14 uh of the 2nd of december 2013 use of kingspan cool thumb k15 rain screen board hi john hope you had a good weekend i'm proposing to send the email below to all technical staff today as this was
01:05:25 technical staff today as this was discussed at length last week at the managers meeting any comments and then there's the draft in italics dear all there has recently been some confusion in respect of the use of kingspan cool firm k15 range screen
01:05:37 kingspan cool firm k15 range screen board in buildings over 18 meters in height the confusion has arisen in respect of whether the material can be treated as a material of limiting combustibility the product has a current bba certificate attached which indicates
01:05:50 certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable for use in accordance with approved document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1
01:05:57 7.1 the bba certificate does seem to qualify this however by then going on to say that in situations over 18 meters advice should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 we are currently investigating this with kingspan and we
01:06:09 investigating this with kingspan and we are awaiting a response from them however until we are in a position to say otherwise nhbc's an hbc bcs's current policy is to accept
01:06:20 an hbc bcs's current policy is to accept the use of this material in rain screen and masonry construction over 18 meters now just pausing there when you contacted kingspan asking for
01:06:31 when you contacted kingspan asking for approvals or advice on buildups over 18 meters
01:06:36 meters as the certificate suggested after july 2013 did you ask them at the same time why it was that the dba certificate suggested that k-15 could be used in accordance with 12.7
01:06:50 so there would have been two that our contact with with kingspan was direct to furnish ourselves with the information that they provided to the bba it was the builders that would
01:07:01 the bba it was the builders that would have contacted them in terms of the individual projects right did you advise your members that when they were contacting the manufacturer as per the certificate they should also ask them what seven point what 12.7 was doing in
01:07:14 what seven point what 12.7 was doing in there
01:07:16 there no why not that might have been the obvious thing to do at least as a starting point
01:07:26 no we we were approaching the manufacturer direct for that information so our conversation at my level was with with with the directly with kingspan and
01:07:38 with with the directly with kingspan and in the meantime accepting
01:07:41 accepting your bcs were accepting in other words approving the use of kingspan in external wall buildups over 18 meters even though it was not a material of limited combustibility so we were accepting it in accordance
01:07:54 so we were accepting it in accordance with its
01:07:55 with its bba certificate where it was used in accordance with the bba certificate which was obviously wrong
01:08:03 which we had questions about at that time
01:08:07 yes now you say that i mean can you explain what the questions were other than
01:08:13 than how on earth could a phenolic insulation board which is combustible comply with clause 12.7
01:08:24 comply with clause 12.7 that's the question we posed to kingspell at that time but as i said to you before i invite you to to accept it there is no answer to that question other than it doesn't
01:08:38 in hindsight no it doesn't within hindsight well at the time they had in our mind there had to be a reason why bba were making that statement that
01:08:49 why bba were making that statement that kingspan must have provided them with information at that time in order to make that statement what we wanted to understand was what information had they provided what information had they got which we hadn't
01:09:01 information had they got which we hadn't which allowed them to make that statement
01:09:06 limited combustibility is
01:09:09 is a description of a product which can be applied as a result of a test isn't it it is
01:09:15 it is and the test could either be under the euro
01:09:17 euro euro tests that um 501 en 13501 or else bs 476 part um 11 i think yes yes
01:09:28 bs 476 part um 11 i think yes yes you'll know that won't you there's nothing in this certificate we can go back to it to tell you uh that kingspan k15 has passed either of those tests or sets of tests is there
01:09:40 tests or sets of tests is there no not within the certificate and therefore i'll put it to you one more time it must have been manifest to you at the time that the reference to 12.7
01:09:52 at the time that the reference to 12.7 can only have been a mistake by whom it doesn't matter it was unreliable you know
01:10:01 at that time i wasn't
01:10:06 i wanted to find out what information had been provided to see if it was a mistake
01:10:14 well i i hadn't at that time i hadn't made a judgment as whether it was a mistake or not i want i wanted to find information i wanted further information i didn't
01:10:25 wanted further information i didn't understand enough about kingspan itself the material i assumed it was a p-i-r-p-u-r insulation which didn't have a which was a wasn't a material combustibility but perhaps there was
01:10:36 combustibility but perhaps there was something that i didn't know which meant it could be and that was why we asked that was why that stage we asked those questions let's go to the next email up in the chain we can see john lewis's response
01:10:49 chain we can see john lewis's response which is page one second email down
01:10:58 john lewis steve evans second december hello steve you see that i do um and then i'm not too sure about this one i think it would be better to wait until till kingston clarify things
01:11:09 wait until till kingston clarify things i don't agree that there's confusion about the mulk classification this type of insulation board is combustible and doesn't meet the mark classification
01:11:21 bba certificate paragraph 7.1 is referring to its class naught rating not its lc properties it's badly worded but i still don't think it implies that k15 is a molk material of limited combustibility
01:11:33 combustibility paragraph 7.2 states that reference needs to be made back to kingspan before accepting it in a building above 18 meters so if we send an out an email to all staff i think we should state that
01:11:44 all staff i think we should state that whilst we are obliged to accept it in principle it is a requirement of the client to obtain this advice from kingspan and present it to us before we can formally accept it in the situation proposed
01:11:55 proposed and then he writes or rewrites the suggested guidance in his email and you can see the text in italics which includes if you look at the last paragraph
01:12:06 if you look at the last paragraph over the page uh it says this until we are in a position to say otherwise nhbc's current and hbc bcs's current policy is to accept in principle the use
01:12:17 policy is to accept in principle the use of this material in range screen and masonry construction over 18 meters subject to the necessary advice from kingspan being received and approved by us for each system buildup and then he goes on at the end the
01:12:28 and then he goes on at the end the trouble is that i don't think kingspan will be able to come up with the required goods but at least we've dug into it a bit deeper
01:12:37 now why were the an hbc obliged his words obliged to accept the advice in principle
01:12:52 sorry can you rephrase the question yes um let's go back then uh to
01:13:00 uh the third paragraph on page one he says
01:13:05 he says in the second line i think we should state that whilst we are obliged to accept it in principle it's a requirement of the client to obtain this advice from kingspan and my question is why was nhbc obliged to
01:13:17 question is why was nhbc obliged to accept the advice in principle
01:13:29 because it would have been used if if the we had the advice from kingspan then it met the conditions of its bba certificate so as a building control body
01:13:41 so as a building control body we could accept that
01:13:45 and if we didn't if we didn't accept that that could realistically be then challenged by the builder
01:13:53 well only if um in fact there had there had been
01:13:57 had been actual compliance with the building regulations which the building control officer had refused to accept surely
01:14:03 surely so as a building control body we can
01:14:08 we can we can't set um
01:14:11 um conditions over and above the building regulations the building regulations in this case allow for a material which is as a third-party certification
01:14:23 third-party certification if
01:14:24 if the
01:14:26 the builder meets the conditions under that third-party certification then
01:14:31 then we
01:14:32 we you know as a building control body we accept that if we if we were to set the conditions any higher um that would be ultra virus to our position
01:14:42 position you're not obliged to accept a statement which is palpably wrong are you you're not obliged to accept a statement by the bba
01:14:49 bba that um k-15 met the requirements of 12-7 when it didn't well
01:14:55 well well again this is why we started to ask questions
01:14:59 questions so
01:15:00 so we had questions clearly at this time but the conditions under at that point in time was that the material had a um
01:15:09 um a bba certificate which the builder could demonstrate they had obtained the the appropriate conditions to fulfill that bba certificate the fact that we started to ask
01:15:20 the fact that we started to ask questions of kingspan in terms of that is demonstrating that we
01:15:25 we you know we were starting to to question why those statements were on the certificate but despite the inclusion of 12.7 here in the certificate john lewis wasn't confused about the combustibility of
01:15:37 confused about the combustibility of k-15
01:15:38 k-15 we'll see he's made it very clear to you in the email back to you of the same day uh that there isn't any confusion k-15 is combustible and is not a molk
01:15:49 is combustible and is not a molk so there's no there's no confusion there and i agreed with him i was my personal viewers i agree with him it wasn't a materialism of combustibility but the the statements that were made in the
01:16:02 the the statements that were made in the bba certificate work were confusing so you could see why some of our builder customers were
01:16:12 were when questioned putting it forward as a materialism to combustibility
01:16:22 can we take it from this email that the nhbc was still accepting the use of k-15 in external facades at this time
01:16:31 this time provided it had a letter from kingspan saying it was okay
01:16:37 providing it was being used in accordance with the bbs certificate yes well
01:16:44 you say that that's that's not an answer to my question you say provided it was being used in accordance with the bba certificate which said two things first of all that it was a material limited
01:16:55 that it was a material limited combustibility yes
01:17:00 yes and secondly seek advice from the manufacturer the certificate which bit are you referring to so the certificate says that um so our interpretation of the certificate and
01:17:11 and was that the material satisfied the conditions in 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 and that providing and the building's over 18 meters
01:17:23 over 18 meters finding is referred to you know that a device was sought from the the manufacturer it could be used in those positions
01:17:31 positions it wasn't state we weren't we weren't approving it as a material of limited combustibility we were accepting it in that position because it had third party certification saying it could be
01:17:43 party certification saying it could be used in that position
01:17:47 what was the point of going back to the manufacturer if
01:17:51 if it was a material of limited combustibility i don't think i've said it's a material of limited combustibility but the certificate does you see no well let me try the question a different way to be fair to you did you ever think
01:18:03 way to be fair to you did you ever think to yourself what is the or ask yourself the question what is the purpose of seeking advice from the manufacturer if as this certificate says k-15 is a material of limited combustibility
01:18:17 and that is why we started to ask questions
01:18:21 questions now the bba certificate was reissued on the 17th of december 2013 only a few uh weeks after this exchange let's go to that um
01:18:32 let's go to that um [Music]
01:18:33 [Music] well we'll come to it in a moment take take it from me take it from me that the contact the manufacturer clause and the reference to 12.7 came out yes
01:18:44 yes uh what i want to show you then is an email chain at nhb 50689
01:18:50 50689 and this is february 2014. so the more story is moving on
01:18:57 and if we
01:19:01 if we start with dave
01:19:07 dave white's emailed to kingspan at the foot of page three please
01:19:16 that says this is the 24th of february to richard bromwich and iva meredith copy to you and john lewis as well as graeme perry or far performance of kingspan k15 insulation on external walls over 18
01:19:27 insulation on external walls over 18 meters hi hello richard we are still dealing with individual nhbc registered projects where it appears that kingspan k15 insulation board is being recommended for use on residential
01:19:38 recommended for use on residential buildings where stories exceed 18 meters and the walls are of framed construction i think that we established and agreed at our meeting in january that the k-15 insulation product had only been tested for fire performance to bsa414 where
01:19:50 for fire performance to bsa414 where k-15 boards are installed using direct mechanical fixing onto a solid masonry block work backing wall and then if you turn the page please could you read the attached memo which
01:20:01 could you read the attached memo which explains our concerns with regard to the recent reissue of bba certificate zero eight
01:20:06 eight four five eight two we would very much appreciate your response to these concerns and any update that you can provide on further accredited testing that may be underway now by that time this is this is late
01:20:18 now by that time this is this is late february 2014 is it fair to say that you were now
01:20:21 were now concerned about how it had come about historically that k-15 was being used so widely and on a wide variety of external wall buildups over 18 meters
01:20:34 yes yes now um the next day 25th of february 2014 i think it's right that you ask john lewis to assess the new bba certificate against your bc policy uh if
01:20:46 certificate against your bc policy uh if we go back if we go up to page three we see that
01:20:49 see that sorry paid yes page i'm sorry i'm so sorry my full page two
01:20:58 i have it at page two uh i think you may need page three uh 25th of february 2014.
01:21:05 2014. uh
01:21:06 uh hi dave can you forward a copy of the bba certificate that you've referred to in the memo john can you assess the new certificate against rbc policy as set out in my email the 27th of january 2014.
01:21:16 2014. and then if we go to the top email in the chain on page one from john lewis to you of the 9th of may 2014
01:21:23 2014 you can see it sits at the top of this chain
01:21:27 chain uh and he says hello steve i've taken a look at the current bba certificate the relevant bit is extracted below uh and we'll come back to look at the substance in just a moment but my first
01:21:38 substance in just a moment but my first question is do you know why it took him two and a half months to come back to you
01:21:43 you i don't know did you chase him i may have done i can't remember do you know why it doesn't appear on the face of it to have been more urgent
01:21:54 at the time we were also meeting with kingspan that's the only reason i can imagine all other things um yes now let's look at the substance uh he says this hello steve i've taken a
01:22:05 uh he says this hello steve i've taken a look and i've shown you that and then he adds the behavior in relation to fire section to the email which details the build up from the successful bsa414 test
01:22:17 from the successful bsa414 test and we see in the smaller text at point one if you see down very small underneath 8.2 there's a little paragraph one you see that yep
01:22:28 see that yep it says the test results the test result relates only to this specific construction and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other combination of
01:22:39 performance of any other combination of materials
01:22:40 materials that's an extract from the certificate and then underneath that clause 8.3 the product incorporated in the construction defined in section 8.2 can be used in buildings with a floor
01:22:51 can be used in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level fire break should be used at every floor level after the first floor and then he says i'm not actually sure how we can justify accepting it exclamation mark even the
01:23:03 accepting it exclamation mark even the bit about an assessment by kingspan has been removed and the words now say that any other combination of materials needs a separate test and the test is to bs8414 part one which is specific
01:23:16 bs8414 part one which is specific masonry walls can we discuss on monday now we can't see a response to that email from you uh in the documents um looking back on it do you remember did you agree with
01:23:27 it do you remember did you agree with his assessment in terms of the new certificate yes you did yes what happened within nhbc by way of of uh reaction to his analysis
01:23:38 way of of uh reaction to his analysis and your agreement with it so we were at this point we were meeting with kingspan um
01:23:46 um and
01:23:47 and asking them to undertake further tests or provide further justification to verify shoot over 18 meters did you stop accepting k15 as of may 2014 given
01:23:58 stop accepting k15 as of may 2014 given that it was not in line with the wording of the bba certificate not at that stage the
01:24:06 the the date of submission to of the initial notice or fall plans application ties in the regulations and the certification that can be used
01:24:17 and the certification that can be used in assessing that scheme so at this point in in may we we set up um we we'd confirm i'd confirmed at the beginning of december the conditions
01:24:29 beginning of december the conditions into which we would accept k-15 in accordance with this bba certificate we've looked at that or we looked at the email that developed that circular that went around um
01:24:39 um so
01:24:39 so we're at this point a lot of the buildings that would um so up until the this new certificate was issued um the previous bva certificate would have been in force
01:24:52 um at this point the buildings that were being designed would have not reached construction stage so there was still time to to work with industry
01:25:03 with industry to
01:25:06 to find a way of demonstrating compliance or for builders to be able to demonstrate compliance if they wanted to use this material
01:25:22 why did you not immediately stop accepting k-15 at that point in respect of even only projects uh going forward
01:25:35 at this time we were working with kingspan and industry to
01:25:42 to identify how if builders wanted to use this material they could demonstrate compliance
01:25:52 and the at this point the communication with kingspan was that they were going to be able to provide that information so we haven't started looking at the meetings we've had with king spanish yet
01:26:05 meetings we've had with king spanish yet um
01:26:05 um but
01:26:06 but at this point we'd had at least two meetings with kingspan where they had acknowledged the fact that the material was not a material limited combustibility and acknowledged
01:26:17 limited combustibility and acknowledged the fact that it could only be used in one position but they had were discussing and expressing um the desire to undertake further testing and
01:26:28 desire to undertake further testing and analysis
01:26:29 analysis to demonstrate to the industry that it could be used in those positions you met them in the january 2014 did you ask them at the time how come the bba certificate had until
01:26:40 how come the bba certificate had until the previous month december 2013 said
01:26:45 said that k-15
01:26:47 that k-15 complied with of adb
01:26:52 of adb so when we initially met them in january i wasn't aware at that point the certificate had changed 2013 at that point i was still under the impression that the bba
01:27:03 under the impression that the bba certificate from
01:27:05 from 6th of april 2010 was in force and i we asked them for information that they provided to
01:27:16 information that they provided to bba in order for bba to make those statements sorry let me be clear you asked them is this right in january 2014. yes so the information that they had given to the bba to enable the bba
01:27:27 bba to enable the bba to certify that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility
01:27:34 to certify to so bba could make the statement that it could be used to satisfy 12.7 i don't think the certificate actually says it's a material of limited
01:27:46 actually says it's a material of limited combustibility in those words it says it complies with 12 points it says it can be used to satisfy paragraph 12.7 so the stat the the certificate doesn't actually say it's the materials combat
01:27:57 actually say it's the materials combat stability it creates confusion around whether it is a material limiting combustibility okay let me try the question a slightly different way then given that you're making that distinction if it is a distinction
01:28:08 distinction if it is a distinction did you ask kingspan for an explanation how 12.7 came to be referred to in clause or section 7.1 of the bba certificate that had existed until december 2013.
01:28:21 december 2013. i believe we did at the at that meeting what did they tell you they said they had testing they had testing that established that they told tomorrow so testing that
01:28:32 they told tomorrow so testing that establishment they had they had further tests which that weren't referred to in the certificate that they could show us some furnishes with and that they were also going to be undertaking further testing to demonstrate that material could be
01:28:44 to demonstrate that material could be used over 18 meters there's a difference isn't there between further testing under 8414 down the track and showing you test results demonstrating compliance with 12.7
01:28:58 demonstrating compliance with 12.7 what did they tell you at that meeting about how it came about that the bba certified k15 as compliant with 12.7
01:29:09 as compliant with 12.7 they didn't give me any information at that meeting to verify that why did you not press them for that we did press them for that we we asked them for to provide us with
01:29:20 we we asked them for to provide us with that information we asked them they also
01:29:24 they also undertook to take further tests which at that point they seemed genuine in doing so so there was no reason to suspect that that wasn't going to happen you say they didn't give you any
01:29:35 you say they didn't give you any information at the meeting did they answer your question the simple question what is 12.7 doing in the certificate did they answer the question
01:29:46 i can't recall if they did did you actually ask it we asked i don't know i don't think we did ask why is 12.7 in that certificate i think we had a discussion around whether
01:29:57 whether kingspan was a material of limited combustibility okay 15 specifically was a material into combustibility
01:30:08 you've explained how historically nhbc had relied on previous versions of the bba certificate for k15 and then and followed the instructions in it to get advice from the manufacturer once the certificate was amended
01:30:21 once the certificate was amended clarifying the the narrow basis on which k-15 could be used above 18 meters as it was in december 2013 why after that did nhbc not follow the
01:30:33 why after that did nhbc not follow the guidance
01:30:34 guidance and refuse to accept k-15 unless it was used in cladding tested successfully under bs8414 or else in a system identical to that
01:30:46 or else in a system identical to that which had been tested by kingspan on a masonry wall
01:30:52 so the reason we didn't take a knee-jerk reaction in stopping at that point to say k-15 could not be used
01:30:59 used was because in dialogue with the the manufacturer at that time
01:31:04 that time they were
01:31:05 they were seemingly going to be working with us an industry to be able to generate the information to provide the information which demonstrated how that
01:31:16 information which demonstrated how that could be used presumably given the now clear and now narrow scope of the bba certificate for k-15 above 18 meters nobody thought in within nhbc
01:31:29 meters nobody thought in within nhbc that you could um rely on bba on the bba certificate for any wider application
01:31:38 no and that that that was our thinking the the certificate the the revised certificate was quite clear that k15 could only be used in one application that was quite clear
01:31:51 however the conversations with the manufacturer was that they were going to be able to provide us with further information in a short space of time
01:32:01 that would satisfy us that it could be used in a range either a range of different situations or
01:32:08 or could actually be used without further um justification over 18 meters
01:32:15 meters to
01:32:16 to and it seemed at that point that they they were seemingly wanting to work with us
01:32:22 us if we'd taken a knee-jerk reaction and said we're not accepting it on any building which is presently under design or build or indeed rebuilt
01:32:31 that would have meant at that point a great deal of upheaval for those designers builders for the industry as a whole which could in three months time have
01:32:43 which could in three months time have actually been demonstrated was the wrong action
01:32:47 action so taken that these buildings actually take a great deal of time to actually design and get to site you've got something like you know 18 months
01:32:56 18 months from starting to design a building to actually getting it onto site start to build
01:33:00 build there was time to actually allow industry to do that research to provide that information do you accept that once the terms of the bba
01:33:11 that once the terms of the bba certificate had been narrowed there was no certified basis for justifying the use of k-15 above 18 meters other than the promises of future tests given to you by kingspan
01:33:23 of future tests given to you by kingspan at that time as a building trial body we wouldn't have been issuing final certificates on schemes which was subject to the new vba certificate
01:33:34 vba certificate so we had so it's not until we actually issue the final certificate at the end of the job where we're saying we've discharged our functions and approved inspector and as far as we can tell using professional
01:33:45 far as we can tell using professional skill and judgment that as far as we're aware that building complies with the building regulations we had time to work with kingspan
01:33:54 kingspan to actually develop that understanding to see if it was if it could be used over 18 meters yes and until that happened
01:34:01 happened in that open-ended time frame until that happened
01:34:05 happened there was no basis whatever for nhbc accepting
01:34:09 accepting the use of case k-15 and external buildups over 18 meters at that point for those new buildings coming in so those buildings were subject to the new so those submitted
01:34:20 subject to the new so those submitted after the first of january or after the the new certificate came in um
01:34:25 um at that point we weren't accepting it because they were still a des it was a design intention at that time it was a design intention of those designers to use k-15 you know sorry so we would have been
01:34:36 you know sorry so we would have been asking
01:34:37 asking two two forms of uh two avenues of trying to finish ourselves with the next information we would have been asking the builder to demonstrate compliance but we also were dealing and communicating with kingspan
01:34:50 dealing and communicating with kingspan who you know on the early on the early meetings we had with them were quite convincing in telling in being able to in telling us that they were going to provide this information so that by the time we actually started to build these
01:35:02 time we actually started to build these build these buildings on site and actually came to issuing a final certificate we would at that point have had that information in place well only if it had proved correct only if it had proven yes so if a builder
01:35:14 if it had proven yes so if a builder came to you on the 9th of may and said please approve my new build over on a steel frame over 18 meters using kingspan k15 what would the nhbc have said
01:35:29 at that point if that's that if that that if they'd come to us on the 9th of may with a building over 18 meters and i said to issue the final certificate the likelihood is that that would have
01:35:41 the likelihood is that that would have been submitted prior to the change in the bba certificate
01:35:47 and so the previous certificate would have been in place and had they had the necessary information from kingspan to verify compliance we would have issued the file certificate at that
01:35:58 issued the file certificate at that point what information so the the information from kingspan verifying that they'd looked at the design and they in their view it was suitable for over 18 meters i suggest you though you were
01:36:10 18 meters i suggest you though you were playing hot and cold weren't you you were relying on the bba certificate right up until december 2013 to allow kingspan k15 above 18 meters but when it suddenly narrows and says
01:36:22 but when it suddenly narrows and says you can't use it unless it's exactly in accordance with the 8414 masonry build up
01:36:27 up uh you don't suddenly suspend or stop the the approvals you wait for as you put it you working with kingspan to try to find a way
01:36:39 to try to find a way why is that no so the the discussions that we've had so
01:36:45 so legally
01:36:47 legally when the so trying to think how to put this actually get the timeline in place so up until the when the certificate was changed in december
01:36:58 december the previous bba certificate was in force
01:37:01 force and at that point the conversations so that those that ties in those regulations and that certificate for that particular building in may we would still be having design conversations with the designers of
01:37:14 conversations with the designers of those buildings prior to that so we wouldn't actually be starting to have conversations with many builders
01:37:22 builders that were subject to the new certificate in in may and june time we would have still been because these buildings take a great deal of time to actually design and then build
01:37:33 actually design and then build your conversations would be your design conversations we were having with may with a number of these builders would have actually been in relation to the previous bba certificate
01:37:44 the previous bba certificate i mean instead of refusing k15 on untested buildups you were really looking for a way of justifying their continued use its continued use weren't you we weren't sorry
01:37:54 sorry nhbc weren't looking for a way nxbc were looking for the manufacturer to be able to provide to their builder customers information to demonstrate compliance
01:38:07 to demonstrate compliance why are you prepared to take the risk of working with kingspan uh
01:38:11 uh if in fact uh as the bba certificate said as of december 2013 uh 12.7 was no longer a root compliance uh and uh
01:38:22 uh and uh nor was seeking approval from the manufacturer why not simply suspend all approvals of the use of k-15 above 18 meters until you had a
01:38:33 you had a some new test data
01:38:39 we
01:38:42 as i say a knee-jerk reaction to stop the use of that material without having all the information which is where we were at that time would have you know would have caused a great deal of difficulty for a number of
01:38:54 great deal of difficulty for a number of our customers who were at various stages of design
01:38:58 of design when actually had kingspan been able to deal give us that information
01:39:04 you know would have actually you know
01:39:08 you know not justified us not accepting it earlier well you met them in january this is may five months has gone by that's not a knee-jerk reaction is it so kingspan were telling us that they would undertake more fire tests
01:39:21 would undertake more fire tests those five tests can take up to six eight months to a range so
01:39:25 so you know these are full scale the 8414 test is a full scale test
01:39:32 in terms of there was only at that time limited
01:39:35 limited facilities in the country to be able to undertake that test so generally at bre i think there was a test rig up in warrington as well um
01:39:44 um booking that test rig could take six yeah there could be a three four five month waiting list to get that test rig you don't have to get in to actually build the sample and then burn it and
01:39:56 build the sample and then burn it and then it could take another couple of months to get the results so the time scale that kingspan were talking about when we first met them in january and then in april was not an unreasonable from our space an unreasonable
01:40:08 from our space an unreasonable time scale for them to be able to undertake that test and give us the results
01:40:13 results and
01:40:14 and in our view at that time by the time we got those results by the times we got the the justification that they were promising as they would be able to provide
01:40:24 provide the buildings which were presently being submitted and going through the design stage
01:40:29 stage would not have would not have reached the stage where we had to issue our final certificate we didn't know that or in respect of any particular building did you you didn't know what might come in
01:40:41 i didn't know what would come in no but in terms of our
01:40:45 our final certificate which is actually when we verify that the building you know as far as we're able to tell using professional skill and care meets the building regulations at that
01:40:56 meets the building regulations at that point
01:40:57 point that's that at this point in may for these buildings that would be affected could be another 12-18 months away i mean did it not occur to you at the time that really this was a this was a very
01:41:08 that really this was a this was a very soft and lax approach to fire safety and that really in effect you've been captured by kingspan and we're being used by them as your poodles no i don't believe that's the case at all
01:41:20 all we had
01:41:22 we had one test which had demonstrated the material could be used over 18 meters there was no point there was no evidence at this point that kingspan would not be
01:41:33 at this point that kingspan would not be able to provide further testing to demonstrate that so
01:41:39 so it was a case of working with industry as a whole to allow industry to provide that information so letting industry take the lead and
01:41:50 so letting industry take the lead and not nhbc
01:41:52 not nhbc as
01:41:53 as you might think the guardians of the highest standards of fire safety i think the work we were doing in working with kingspan was part of that role in raising standards
01:42:05 role in raising standards and preserving fire safety
01:42:10 mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is um well i think it's time we had a break for the afternoon mr evans we'll stop there we'll resume please at 25 to 4
01:42:22 resume please at 25 to 4 and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room all right thank you very much
01:42:37 thank you mr 25 to 4 please
01:59:04 would you ask his drivers come back in please
01:59:20 all right mr evans all ready to carry on the hip yes thank you very much yes yes thank you mr chairman uh mr evans uh looking back at the time 2013 early 2014 was kingspan's k15
01:59:32 was kingspan's k15 the only combustible uh insulation material being used in external cladding facades above 18 meters do you remember or were there others there were others yes who were the others what were the others the other the others that i'm
01:59:43 others the other the others that i'm aware of would be uh the celetex rs 5000. uh it was in late 13 that was only tested on the second of may 2014 apparently success that's not then sorry i'm getting my dates mixed
01:59:54 then sorry i'm getting my dates mixed right sorry can you think can you think of any other i can't know right do you remember that in november 2013 celetex contacted nhbc to ask for their views about the the use of their fr 5000
02:00:05 views about the the use of their fr 5000 insulation product another combustible insulation do you remember that i'm aware that they contacted nhbcs i think it's right that dave white and graham perry or were the people in nhbc
02:00:17 graham perry or were the people in nhbc who who dealt in the main with celetex yes would that be right were you aware that celetex was contacting an hbc asking for their advice on standards in order to uh allow them to tailor their testing of
02:00:29 uh allow them to tailor their testing of what was that our fr5000 in order to relaunch it as rs 5000 do you remember i can't remember if that time i was aware
02:00:37 aware now we know that the product was tested twice in fact in february and in ma in may 2014 and purportedly passed a large-scale fire
02:00:49 purportedly passed a large-scale fire test under bs8414 part 2 so steel
02:00:53 so steel in uh on the second of may and the results were reported uh by bre to have satisfied the br135 criteria do you remember that i
02:01:04 i i'm aware of that test yes yes were you aware that before that test they had failed or our s5000 had failed a bsa414 test in february 2014. i wasn't aware at that time now
02:01:16 2014. i wasn't aware at that time now let's go to nhb 50748
02:01:22 this is an email chain from august 2014 at the time when rs 5000 was launched onto the market that's a long chain we need only go to the fourth email down page three
02:01:35 the fourth email down page three which is the 8th of august 2014 email at the foot of the page from neville pells
02:01:42 pells to you neville pelz is a project manager in the technical services division
02:01:48 division and uh he
02:01:50 and uh he says
02:01:52 says uh steve
02:01:53 uh steve you see this he says um steve has discussed the email below and the following link which is a celetex website products rs 5000 as i mentioned there is nothing on
02:02:05 5000 as i mentioned there is nothing on the bba website at the moment but the email below suggests there is a bba i've asked nigel shields at durkan for further info and there's an email below that
02:02:16 and there's an email below that now if we go up to the next email uh in the chain we can see that you having received this email from noel perl send it on to dave white grey and perrier and john
02:02:27 to dave white grey and perrier and john lewis hi all newell has found this product to the foot of your screen there noah has found this product we can't find a bba certificate at present but it claims to have had a test making it suitable over 18 meters although i
02:02:39 suitable over 18 meters although i suspect this is the same as k15 only in the configuration tested
02:02:45 and then um uh if you go to the response from john lewis at the bottom of page one on the 12th of august 2014 1649
02:02:55 1649 uh he says hello steve and then if we go to the top of page two he says the most noticeable thing is the use of non-combustible first cement panels on
02:03:07 non-combustible first cement panels on the external face but at least so they claim it's tested on a steel supporting structure and not a masonry wall well i guess that's a step forward from the situation with k-15
02:03:18 now a step forward was it a step forward as
02:03:23 as john lewis puts it because most of the buildings
02:03:26 buildings if not all of the buildings you were providing warranty and building control services
02:03:30 services for with those with a structural steel frame
02:03:37 i believe what john would have meant at that time the way i took it with that we now had a a test which demonstrated that a material with combustibility could be
02:03:48 material with combustibility could be tested
02:03:49 tested um and shown to pass a test in a
02:03:53 in a uh a
02:03:54 uh a with an a4142 test yes yeah but you've never seen a bs 8414 part 2 test satisfying the r135 for k15
02:04:05 part 2 test satisfying the r135 for k15 not at that point now at the very top of the chain 13th of august 2014 we can see that dave white responds to those on the chain uh and you're one of those recipients of
02:04:17 uh and you're one of those recipients of this email 13th of august and he says this
02:04:20 this hello john graham and i are currently reviewing a fire test report and supporting information provided by celetex for this product we recently had a meeting at their factory premises and have since reviewed a final version of the bre fire test
02:04:33 a final version of the bre fire test report
02:04:34 report however the sample test as reported was a wall type with a very robust construction i.e the thickest boards were specified for both the rain screen and the fire resistant magnesium oxide backing board fixed as sheathing behind
02:04:47 backing board fixed as sheathing behind the ceretex insulation product i think that once we have had time to look at this in standards and technical it would be useful to discuss with you and steve meanwhile if you want to read the report just let me know and i will forward it
02:04:58 just let me know and i will forward it to you we should deal with the fire test information as as commercial in confidence at the moment uh
02:05:09 now i want just having shown you that to show you an extract from dave white's review of the bre fire test report for rs 5000 and his subsequent correspondence with john roper at celetex
02:05:21 celetex can we go to nhb 50784
02:05:27 and if we go to the second page please in the email run this is a letter uh dated the 29th of september 2014
02:05:40 and if you go to the first paragraph down on page 2 uh you can see that dave white says this at the top of your screen at our previous meetings i took care when
02:05:51 previous meetings i took care when explaining the limitations in testing fire performance of any wall type where the key details were not representative of typical actual facade systems this included some constructive feedback on
02:06:02 included some constructive feedback on your initial prototype drawings however when we finally saw that the actual test has included some very large format thick cladding boards and unusual detailing the immediate comment was that this test installation was not
02:06:14 this test installation was not sufficiently representative of typical rain screen designs normally found on high-rise residential buildings whilst this arrangement was resistant to early temperature rise within upper story levels the overall fire behavior
02:06:25 levels the overall fire behavior indicated that the facade had only limited fire resistance and continued to burn extensively in excess of 30 minutes
02:06:34 and if we then go to the third paragraph from the bottom he
02:06:39 he says uh this in terms of nhbc acceptance our technical view is that the far performance of celetex insulation shows limitations in the actual fire resistance relying heavily on a specific
02:06:51 resistance relying heavily on a specific and unusual facade construction type including thickness and layout of key parts of the cladding system to provide partial fire resistance i'm just pausing there
02:07:02 i'm just pausing there uh why did you do you remember did you discuss this test with john lewis and dave white i can't remember if i did did you know
02:07:13 if i did did you know anything of the build-up that celetex had used to get rs 5000 past the bsa414 part 2 test only what i'd read in this in dave's email
02:07:24 email oh i see you did did you know about it at the time not when they undertook the test no right
02:07:31 right um
02:07:32 um did you have a view at the time as to whether or not the rs 5000 build up which had apparently passed this test in may 2014 represented uh external wall buildups used in real life on real-life
02:07:43 buildups used in real life on real-life buildings
02:07:46 buildings i didn't have a view at that time though now let's look at dave white's statement
02:07:52 three four three nhb403437 please i just want to show you something that he says um at page 27 paragraph 100
02:08:02 foot of the page he says this although i had previously explained to celetex that any test specimen would need to fully represent the typical wall make up for an external facade wall
02:08:13 for an external facade wall they had taken a different approach by testing exceptionally large format thicker panels with a cladding layout containing very unusual closed joint detailing
02:08:22 detailing this created reductions in conventional spacing dimensions normally used in wall cladding therefore it did not comply with nhbc standards for rain screen walls
02:08:33 walls now do you agree with him that the bso414 part two test was which carried out on rs 5000 on the 2nd of may 2014 did not comply with nhbc standards
02:08:47 for the reasons he says
02:08:52 i don't think that's what dave is saying is it
02:08:55 is it i think dave is saying that the test that has passed would achieve nhbc standards because it's passed the test
02:09:03 test but
02:09:04 but i think what dave is saying is that we wouldn't typically see that type of cladding
02:09:11 on buildings so it would be unusual to see that type of cladding on buildings in terms of that large format panels
02:09:21 so had had celetex been um used in the configuration tested on a building then yes it would meet nhpc standard nhbc standards
02:09:35 can you explain what standards he's referring to so these are nhbc standards rather than the building regulations indeed so dave would be commenting from a standard for in terms of nhbc standards rather than
02:09:47 in terms of nhbc standards rather than building control i understand that um and i hesitate before asking you to interpret
02:09:54 interpret a witness statement from another witness but but rather than calling him can you help do you agree or do you disagree that
02:10:01 that the wall makeup with their large format thicker panels unusual close joint detailing and consequent reductions in conventional spacing dimensions
02:10:12 conventional spacing dimensions meant that that buildup didn't comply with nhbc standards for rain screen walls
02:10:18 walls i'm trying to see why he's saying it doesn't comply with nhbc standards for arranged screen walls it could be a another reason such as the ventilation gap that was used or something like that
02:10:29 something like that did the nhbc subsequently allow the use of rs 5000 above 18 meters when conducting building control services on such buildings
02:10:40 um i believe after uh um 2015 our changing policy yes we did you did if it was if it was demonstrated that it was in accord with the bca guy it's not 18.
02:10:52 it's not 18. right i mean it's right isn't it that because rs 5000 could only be used in the one configuration for which it had passed a bs8414 part 2 test it could only it could only be
02:11:05 it could only it could only be um
02:11:06 um used above 80 meters in exactly that configuration if it was being used and they were going down the route of the 8414 testing route yes
02:11:17 the 8414 testing route yes but obviously if they if subsequently the builder provided an option three a desktop assessment of that system then we could accept it if that was the
02:11:28 then we could accept it if that was the case do you remember whether you discussed this build up the build up that has described the paragraph 100 though with dave white at the time i didn't know you didn't
02:11:39 you didn't were you ever concerned in general that manufacturers were so to speak over engineering facades in order to pass bs8414 tests
02:11:48 at the time i didn't know they were being over engineered obviously having heard evidence from the inquiry since then i know that that is the case and had i known at the time yes i would have been concerned uh now after the
02:12:00 been concerned uh now after the successful bs8414 test for rs 5000 so it appeared
02:12:04 appeared did the nhbc see it being used on buildings over 18 meters did it come up um i
02:12:12 um i i would have expected at that time that some of our builders would have put it forward as a possible solution to achieving their thermal requirements of their water and it where it uh differed from
02:12:25 and it where it uh differed from the
02:12:27 the exceptional rig as tested as described by mr white here what was the basis on which the nhbc would accept it was that desktops
02:12:37 desktops um
02:12:38 um i i would imagine so this time yes i'm trying to again trying to film out where this fits in with the timeline of what we were doing at the time yes well this is 2014 um may to may to
02:12:49 yes well this is 2014 um may to may to august
02:12:52 so yeah so we would have been talking to the you know our people surveys and that would have been talking to the um the builders if they were proposing to use this
02:13:01 use this product
02:13:02 product and
02:13:03 and unless they were using it in accordance with the
02:13:06 with the the test result then they would have been asking for a desktop assessment yes and and by that time by at least after june 2014 that would have been apparently in accordance with what you
02:13:18 apparently in accordance with what you came to call option three in your technical guidance nate yes you issue naught yes now let's go back to kingspan then early 2014
02:13:28 2014 you told us that you met with with kingsman in the january of 2014. yes yes and that was after the change to the bba certificate uh let's go to nhb 50652
02:13:46 this is your update from the meeting that you sent to your technical
02:13:50 technical team your senior technical team the following week the 27th of january 2014. it's from you to the technical services managers copy to graeme perrier dave white and john lewis subject kingspan
02:14:02 white and john lewis subject kingspan update you see that i do uh and if you um look at the first paragraph it says no i'll read much of this to you now further to the technical services operations meeting last week i
02:14:13 services operations meeting last week i can provide an update on our dealing with kingspan and in particular opposition with respect to the use of kingspan cool them k-15 in buildings over 18 meters in height myself grand perrier john lewis and dave
02:14:24 myself grand perrier john lewis and dave white met with richard bromage national business development director and i am a meredith project manager technical of kingspan just over a week ago the meeting was in response to our approaches at the end of last year at
02:14:36 approaches at the end of last year at the meeting we summarised our position and confirmed the circumstances under which we would be able to accept the use of k-15 as detailed in my email on the 2nd of december 2013. in response
02:14:47 in response kingspan stated that they have a range of information in existence which they can share with us to demonstrate the capabilities of the product but agreed that the only conclusive test for the product is the one used to produce the
02:14:58 product is the one used to produce the present bba certification which was carried out in 2005. they did confirm to us that they booked test sites at bre in early march 2014 in order to test k15 to bs8414 part one the tests
02:15:12 test k15 to bs8414 part one the tests will allow the product to be tested in a variety of cladding makeups and therefore provide further evidence for industry to support the use of material
02:15:21 material the material in a wider range of scenarios than presently exists kingspan have agreed to share the testing schedule with us and nhbc have agreed to make comment if necessary we have therefore agreed to meet with richard
02:15:32 therefore agreed to meet with richard and iver again at the beginning of april to review the information coming out of the tests and how this may affect the use of the material in buildings over 18 meters in height therefore until this meeting
02:15:45 therefore until this meeting and this is a meeting three months down the track
02:15:48 the track in
02:15:48 in until this meeting our position in respect of kingspan cool 13 k15 remains as per my email dated second of december and you remember that and particularly the last paragraph which you've cited
02:16:00 the last paragraph which you've cited again there at the bottom of the screen until we are in a position to say otherwise etc now
02:16:07 now um
02:16:08 um it's right isn't it that at this time kingspan had no further large-scale test evidence involving k-15 to give you did they they didn't know all that they had was their
02:16:19 didn't know all that they had was their 2005 test the details of which were set out in the bba certificate uh uh in accordance with bsa414 part one masonry substrate yes yes yes
02:16:33 masonry substrate yes yes yes did the nhbc therefore stop approving or underwriting k-15 after this meeting in january 2015 uh until or a lesson until it was used in the exact build-up tested in 2005.
02:16:48 no at this meeting um we were unaware that the
02:16:52 that the the subsequent change to this certificate in december 2003 we were unaware that that the certificate had changed at this meeting it wasn't until after this meeting we were made aware that the certificate had changed
02:17:03 that the certificate had changed kingsman didn't tell us the certificate of change at this meeting um and as i said before in january the the the buildings we were having discussions
02:17:14 the buildings we were having discussions on in terms of designs and it's in the design is an iterative process it takes time to develop a design um
02:17:22 um the builder doesn't necessarily provide you with that that's my design that's what i'm going to build we will have conversations about what they're intending to do how they're going to design it how they're going to solve the various issues around the building regulation
02:17:33 issues around the building regulation not just fire safety but thermal all of those things um the buildings we would have been having conversations those design conversations at the time would have still been subject to the previous bba certificate which for
02:17:46 bba certificate which for you know the the previous question have explained why we accepted that bba certificate and
02:17:51 and [Music]
02:17:53 [Music] that gives rise to two questions first of all why didn't you at this stage late january 2015
02:18:01 2015 write to your customers and say for the time being until we have further test data
02:18:09 test data you may only use k15 above 18 meters if the external wall construction corresponds precisely with the external wall buildup used to
02:18:21 with the external wall buildup used to pass the 2005 test because at that time we didn't know that k15 would not be safe in those positions it may have been
02:18:33 positions it may have been that the testing that was being promised by kingspan would have demonstrated that it could be used if i'd have written to all my customers at that point and said
02:18:43 and said we're not going to accept it
02:18:47 a that would have caused at that point pandemonium um
02:18:52 um in terms of their design solutions which they've been using for a number of years or the products they're familiar with but also had then kingspan been able to furnish us with that information in
02:19:03 furnish us with that information in three five six months time to then start saying accepted it again we actually you know it it doesn't doesn't
02:19:14 doesn't doesn't instill confidence in us as a building troll body indeed in doing that does it well that's a matter of that's a matter of opinion but but i'm interested in what you just said when you said um
02:19:26 said when you said um uh you you didn't know that k15 would not be safe in those positions but is ignorance of the absence of danger a route to compliance
02:19:40 at this point the buildings we were talking about in terms of the design had kingspan not been able to furnish us with that information there would have been time to change those designs
02:19:53 let me press you again just because you didn't know it wasn't safe why was that an acceptable route to to um
02:20:01 to to um why was that an acceptable route for nhbc
02:20:05 nhbc uh to proceed on the basis that customers were continuing to be compliant
02:20:10 compliant but we had we didn't have information on that time we said it was unsafe either but that's with great respect there's nothing in adb is there that says that you can put k-15 above 18
02:20:21 says that you can put k-15 above 18 meters
02:20:22 meters unless you know it's not safe
02:20:26 that's not how the regulation works is it
02:20:34 no but so we at this point in january we were in a position where we had a bba certificate which meant that it could be accepted at providing
02:20:45 that it could be accepted at providing the builder demonstrated compliance with that certificate right well here you are going to the manufacturer taking advice from the manufacturer and the manufacturer is not telling you don't worry it's material of
02:20:56 telling you don't worry it's material of limiting combustibility right
02:20:59 right right so that's out the window and is not telling you uh
02:21:04 uh don't worry it can be used on all sorts of buildups because we've got lots of eight four one four tests uh which which would carry across into a wide range of buildups he's just telling you they've
02:21:15 buildups he's just telling you they've got the 2005 masonry substrate test yes yes right
02:21:21 yes right given that that's all you had to go on as directed by the certificate you thought was excellent at the time why not simply
02:21:33 why not simply say there is no evidence on which k-15 can safely be used above 18 meters and therefore there is no evidence to demonstrate compliance with
02:21:44 evidence to demonstrate compliance with adb and until there is we're suspending approvals and we're not underwriting
02:21:58 the decision was made to to work with industry to work with kingspan to allow them the opportunity to demonstrate to us that it was safe to use
02:22:09 use in order so that we didn't disrupt the development process well just help me with this mr trump's let's put mr millett's question the other way around
02:22:20 other way around if someone had asked you at this time how do you justify accepting the use of k-15 over 18 meters what would you have said so
02:22:31 so we had a
02:22:33 we had a body the bba who in their in their certification had
02:22:39 had verified that it could be used under those conditions over 18 meters
02:22:44 that was the information we had to go on at that time
02:22:49 we knew it could be tested and had demonstrated that it could be tested in one configuration and passed so
02:22:57 so the the the view was that we could work with
02:23:01 with industry or allow industry to furnish with further information to demonstrate that it could be safe but it could be used in further situations it sounds to me as though what you're saying is that you only had
02:23:15 a clear statement that it was that it was fit for use over 18 meters in a very limited not even range actually very limited build-up but you had no other
02:23:28 build-up but you had no other grounds for accepting it in a different build-up
02:23:33 build-up is that right that's correct yes yeah you had limited information right so the answer to my question is you had no
02:23:41 no supporting material
02:23:44 material for the use of k-15 other in a build-up which was different from the one explicitly described in in the vba certificate that's the information we had yes
02:23:57 that's the information we had yes so i think the question then is on what basis did you think it was proper to
02:24:03 proper to accept its use
02:24:07 we wanted to get all the to gain further information to make
02:24:12 to make an informed decision that it wasn't that if it wasn't safe then it wasn't suitable
02:24:19 until we had that information we had we didn't have information either way i suppose we had the the information we did have was positive towards the use of the material we had
02:24:30 towards the use of the material we had the bba certificate and we had one report
02:24:33 report we didn't at that time have any information which said so we had no failed test reports we had no information that said anything different so we wanted to before we actually said we can't use this material we're not
02:24:45 we can't use this material we're not going to accept this material um as we would with other not just not just kingspan but any other room for any any other material where we where we don't have all the information we were generally tied to seek
02:24:57 generally tied to seek additional information to make sure we had a fully informed case before making that decision all right thank you yes
02:25:06 yes that's a going forward question um i want to ask you about the legacy um did you realize at this point so late january 2014 that you had an overhang or legacy of up
02:25:18 that you had an overhang or legacy of up to nine years back to 2005 or buildings above 18 meters which might have kingspan k15 on them uh in external wall build up configurations that differed
02:25:29 build up configurations that differed from that which had been tested in 2005.
02:25:34 of course as an organization we realised that yes and what did you do about it
02:25:40 again it was um there was there was no evidence to prove that it
02:25:46 that it in the in the situations that had been used it wasn't safe there was no evidence to prove that they were either way we didn't have a test either way but again we wanted to furnish ourselves with enough information in terms of
02:25:59 with enough information in terms of making a decision in terms of its use going forward and did you start to think of a plan to cater for the contingency that kingspan might very well not be able to come up with any tests any successful
02:26:11 come up with any tests any successful 8414 tests on any configurations differently different from the one they tested in 2005.
02:26:18 so in my role at this time my focus was on getting the information so that we could issue um
02:26:25 um building trial final certificates going forward
02:26:29 forward now it's right i think isn't it that the nhbc continued to meet kingspan during 2014 including shortly after they had threatened with litigation
02:26:39 the threat of litigation i think was towards probably the early part of 2015 but yes we did we did continue to meet with them through 2014 sorry you did now i'd like
02:26:51 through 2014 sorry you did now i'd like to show you what iva meredith told us when he gave evidence uh he worked at kingspan and he was in charge of the k-15 large-scale testing um
02:27:01 um and now
02:27:02 and now i'm going to show you uh the transcript but also an email i'll show you the email first please uh kin405894
02:27:15 and uh
02:27:18 if you go to
02:27:21 uh the email of the third of uh february 2014 from iva meredith to tony miller chap it says nhbc need your thoughts
02:27:32 it says nhbc need your thoughts now this is a week after the meeting or a week after the week after the meeting you see what i mean a week after you reported on it tony i'm getting increasingly concerned about the number of k-15 projects
02:27:43 of k-15 projects that the nhbc are involved in and the fact that they're referring to us for confirmation that the product is suitable with this in mind if you can just check the letter below and give me your thoughts i do not think we can i can do any more apart from allude to our
02:27:56 can do any more apart from allude to our forthcoming test program which is what we advise the nhpc we were doing kingspan insulation limited during 2014 intend to embark on a test program to further prove suitability
02:28:08 to further prove suitability tm as tony miller chef extend the scope of use for cool therm k-15 and high-rise facades therefore would appreciate feedback on any combustible cladding systems that you are typically adopting in high-rise buildings
02:28:20 in high-rise buildings the reason nhbc are asking for this information at the moment is because they do not want to say no to kingspan
02:28:28 kingspan however if we cannot provide the correct information they will say no if you can provide your sign off to the letter below and suggest if it needs anything else it would be appreciated
02:28:39 else it would be appreciated now i've shown you that um can we keep that on the screen please and have now the transcript from either meredith's evidence
02:28:50 at day 76
02:28:53 day 76 page 102
02:29:00 and you can see from what's on the screen at line 12 ms grange is showing mr meredith his this this email
02:29:13 mr meredith his this this email and she cites it at lines 13 uh
02:29:18 uh down through the rest of the page and then if you turn the page please
02:29:29 to page 103
02:29:34 you can see uh the transcript shows the email that uh either meredith writes to tony miller chat then continues
02:29:43 continues see page 5915 there the reason nhbc are asking for this information at the moment is because they do not want to say no to kingspan etc etc
02:29:55 etc etc and then the question comes at line 24
02:30:01 can you help us why did nhbc not want to say no to kingspan why was that answer i think it's a matter of cost really a high performance insulation is considerably thinner than the non-combustible alternative if the
02:30:13 non-combustible alternative if the cladding zone is reduced the footprint of the building can be expanded the fixed singles all the bracketry everything is considerably reduced there's a massive cost saving to look towards a high rise i'm sorry massive cost savings to look towards utilizing
02:30:25 cost savings to look towards utilizing high performance in high rise or in any wall buildup and then here comes the question and answer at 104 line 10 so you think the nhbc were reluctant to stop using k15 on buildings it was
02:30:37 stop using k15 on buildings it was involved with because k15 was cheaper than the other alternatives and therefore advantageous to it answer yes and i think maybe they'd gone down the route of a number of buildings already and they
02:30:49 number of buildings already and they were worried that they needed us to provide more satisfactory information so they didn't have to maybe go back to those buildings and correct how it had been installed maybe question yes so they're also worried
02:31:01 question yes so they're also worried that they've got k-15 on a lot of existing buildings answer yes and they don't want to have to go and take it all down yes certainly and the question for you is was either meredith correct in what he said here
02:31:12 meredith correct in what he said here particularly from line 10 to 24 on page 104 there
02:31:22 no he's he's not my consideration at that time was ensuring that we had information to demonstrate that that material could be used was he not right
02:31:34 material could be used was he not right that the nhbc was concerned about the cost consequences of stopping using k15 because it was cheaper than the other alternatives
02:31:44 i don't recall conversations happening about that at that time no was he not right that the nhbc were worried about the amount of buildings on which they had approved k-15 historically
02:31:57 not in conversations i was party too no there must have been a concern at the nhbc has you told us in my role at that time my role was looking at
02:32:09 looking at how we could get the information from builders to demonstrate compliance with the building regulations indeed
02:32:15 indeed my role
02:32:16 my role was
02:32:17 was not concerned with previous buildings or whatever that my my role my focus at that time was working with industry to get solutions to it or to solve solutions
02:32:30 to it or to solve solutions um or to sorry to get solutions or to identify if those products could be safe so whose role was it well let me ask it this way did anybody within hbc have a
02:32:41 this way did anybody within hbc have a role of looking back at the the overhang the legacy of the use of k15 above 18 meters and working out whether or not
02:32:49 or not uh those configurations complied with the building regulations and adb i don't know at that time you don't know now you met kingspan again in april 2014.
02:33:01 2014. if we go please to nhb 50688 this is an email chain from that month let's look at the second email down in the chain that starts at the bottom of page one and goes over to page two
02:33:13 page one and goes over to page two it's an email from dave white second of april 2014 to a number of uh individuals including philip pettinger copy to john lewis graeme perriel and
02:33:25 copy to john lewis graeme perriel and you as you can see mr evans there and if we go to page two we can see the text of it
02:33:31 it and he says fyi to clarify in response to the various emails below
02:33:39 um nhbc had a follow-up meeting with kingspan today to discuss further testing in relation to fire performance of the k-15 insulation board product on walls above 18 meters although some additional testing has recently been
02:33:51 additional testing has recently been done there are still and this is in bold no further reports yet issued to prove performance from typical multi-story frame building where the wall build up includes light gauge stud framing filled
02:34:02 includes light gauge stud framing filled with insulation and covered by exterior grade fire resistant sheathing board onto which the k-15 is fixed so to clarify on the current situation for walls 18 meters and above
02:34:14 walls 18 meters and above the and this is in caps only wall build up for which we have full proof of fire performance of k15 insulation is for a block work masonry backing wall
02:34:27 is for a block work masonry backing wall this is all in bold and caps ie is described in bre fire test report 220876 for kingspan insulation on a multi-stall wall bold tested as defined
02:34:38 multi-stall wall bold tested as defined by br 135 and bs8414 part 1. this is referred to a bba certificate 084582 but may not be absolutely clear from the way it's presented in the current cert
02:34:49 current cert and then underneath that in bold we plan to review this again with kingspan pending results from ongoing bre fire testing in the coming months now
02:34:58 now um that is a you got that email at the time was there anything about that email that was not crystal clear to you
02:35:06 no no to to be clear do you accept that as of early april 2014 there were still no further successful bs 8414 tests
02:35:17 further successful bs 8414 tests involving kingspan k15 other than the bs8414 part one test done in 2005 and referred to in the bba certificates
02:35:29 certificates yes yes
02:35:32 is it true as it appears that it was that nhbc was still approving and warranting k15 in a variety of buildups in april 2014 even though nhbc had been questioning
02:35:44 even though nhbc had been questioning its use since august 2013 and
02:35:47 and no further full-scale testing had been forthcoming which was successful and which would therefore justify an application wider than or
02:35:58 justify an application wider than or different from the 2005 test build-up
02:36:05 so again at this point in 2014 the buildings we would be issuing final certificates for and offering warranty on would have been built under the previous bba certificate
02:36:18 built under the previous bba certificate so
02:36:19 so again in order to comply with the bbo certificate which at that point said it could be used in
02:36:24 used in to demonstrate compliance with 12 or 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 providing there was reference to the manufacturer if that was in place then those final certificates and
02:36:37 then those final certificates and warranties we offered at that time would have still been valid that may be a reason for what you were doing but i'm asking you whether you were doing it um let me let me try the question a different way
02:36:48 question a different way was there ever a building over 18 meters which used k15 in the exact build up which kingspan had successfully tested to 8414 part one in 2005.
02:37:00 to 8414 part one in 2005. i don't know you don't know um as at early 2014 is it not correct that all of nhbc's historic approvals and warranties of external wool build-ups using k-15 over 18 meters were
02:37:13 build-ups using k-15 over 18 meters were on build-ups different from the one tested in 2005. i don't know if they all were well had you ever come across yourself or to your knowledge or colleagues a
02:37:25 or to your knowledge or colleagues a buildup using and using the materials and in exactly the same configuration as the wall buildup used in the 2005 k15 test
02:37:36 test i can't
02:37:37 i can't i can't say they were that there were some more or there weren't i don't know i don't i'm not
02:37:44 not i haven't been involved in every project that's been undertaken by nhbc when you got this email did you not think to yourself
02:37:52 yourself golly goodness we've got now to do a backwards-looking audit to find out what buildings k-15 is on in order to make sure
02:38:01 sure that they are only on
02:38:03 on buildings containing an external wall build up identical to that used for the 2005 test and none other did you do that no why not
02:38:14 did you do that no why not as i said my focus at this point my focus at this point was
02:38:19 was working to gain information that um builders could demonstrate compliance with the building regulations going forward yeah there is nothing to say
02:38:30 there is nothing to say that those buildings which had been built at that time were not safe had
02:38:38 had so had we issued an edit saying we're no longer using k-15 um
02:38:46 um and that
02:38:47 and that you know caused out on previous buildings which had been built the builders could have the building owners the building could have had that she had those configurations tested to demonstrate compliance so there was
02:38:59 to demonstrate compliance so there was there was not enough information to to furnish us with that
02:39:05 can we go up the email chain because this this continues top of the first page we can see a response to dave white's email from philip pettinger who was a special products manager
02:39:17 who was a special products manager and his email is dated the next day third of april 2014 and it comes to dave white john lewis you and graham perrier copy to steve cook uh importance high and then he says this
02:39:28 uh importance high and then he says this um and i just should say phil pettinger um who is an mcabe in an iciob was project manager special projects within the technical services department that is who he is and you could just see that
02:39:40 is who he is and you could just see that on the screen at the bottom and he says this without exaggeration every building every is emboldened underlined by the way
02:39:48 way so the tone of this email correspondence is quite strident without exaggeration every building srpm deal with which are over 18 meters in height on extremes now pushing 250 meters in height proposed
02:40:02 pushing 250 meters in height proposed stroke have used kingspan k15 and i would guess that 90 or more all in bold are light gauge steel infill frame walls with either brickwork and or rain screen external
02:40:14 brickwork and or rain screen external cladding this would include building control jobs also on warranty only jobs we are accepting k15 if the building control body is happy and deem it to comply they always
02:40:25 happy and deem it to comply they always are and do exclamation mark we are adopting the same approach to our own warranty and bc jobs subject to our surveyors and then in bold and red
02:40:36 in bold and red adjust for clarity and to avoid confusion
02:40:41 confusion are our building control teams accepting k-15
02:40:45 k-15 this for these types of jobs at the moment question mark it would be good to know as we get asked by various developers and contractors this question will come up in a meeting next week for a 75-storey resi building
02:40:57 next week for a 75-storey resi building and suspect it will be the key factor as to whether nhbc undertake the bc or not however tower hamlets officer john mcgeary is also looking at this situation and is fully aware of the issues not sure of his decision on
02:41:09 issues not sure of his decision on though
02:41:10 though they will be the alternative bc provider thanks kind regards phil pettinger now
02:41:16 now that email again when you got that were you in any doubt about what it was that mr pettinger was saying no
02:41:24 no no his email is called doesn't it with the impression that either meredith got as in accordance with the transcript i showed you doesn't it that nhbc had a pr had approved a lot of buildings with
02:41:35 had approved a lot of buildings with k-15 on it historically which were different uh from the test yes yes
02:41:41 yes yes now you addressed part of this email in your statement so i should show you that uh
02:41:47 uh uh
02:41:48 uh let's go to your statement at page 29 please paragraph 87 where you um can be
02:41:56 can be if we just have that paragraph 87 on page 29 uh
02:42:02 uh you say
02:42:04 you say uh after dave alexander white that's his name it's dave white isn't it his full name is alexander white yes yes after dave alexander white sent an internal update dated second april 2014 highlighting that there was only one
02:42:15 highlighting that there was only one bs8414 test for k15 philip pettinger sent a number of us an email dated 3rd of april in terms of the question in the rule 9 request about this email and then you go on about
02:42:27 this email and then you go on about about to answer some questions about that
02:42:30 that um but i think it's right isn't it that nothing in your statement here doubts what phil pettinger is saying no
02:42:39 no um
02:42:40 um we don't need the statement for this question why was it that the nhbc warranty team were simply accepting k-15 above 18 meters if it was outside building control
02:42:51 building control if outside building control officers were doing the same
02:42:55 same so where we're the warranty body we're not the enforcing building troll body obviously so um there was a process um
02:43:04 um at that time where um if we had um if the if the warranty assessors or the inspect build our building inspectors um had
02:43:15 building inspectors um had um questions in terms of building mixed compliance um
02:43:19 um they would they could and not all cases but they could
02:43:23 could ask the builder to get the view of the building control body so the enforcing building control body and
02:43:30 and if the building troll body came back and said actually we've assessed it we're we're comfortable with it then in some cases in in most cases we would accept that for i think suggest and and issue our issue
02:43:41 i think suggest and and issue our issue of warranty right so it was it the case that actually nhbc's warranty team wasn't separately underwriting the risk of non-compliance they were essentially so to speak following the leader the leader in this case being building
02:43:52 leader in this case being building control
02:43:54 control so the no the the those inspectors the the especially which project managers and the inspectors are not underwriters they're inspecting in accordance with our standards
02:44:06 our standards so
02:44:08 so and and compliance with the standards our one
02:44:12 our one requirement one of the standards is that the building meets the national building regulations or standards depending on yourself so if they had a query in terms of whether it met the building regulations
02:44:23 regulations um
02:44:25 um they
02:44:26 they could there was a process whereby they could ask
02:44:30 could ask the builder to provide evidence from their building control body to verify that they the building troll body had assessed it in accordance with the building regulations and they were comfortable with it and they could take that as evidence that
02:44:43 that as evidence that um r1 had been met in terms of our standards um just taking that in stages what evidence did your inspectors see
02:44:53 see that the building control officers were seeing which showed that k-15 above 18 meters did comply with the building regulations and the approved documents so the inspectors wouldn't see the
02:45:04 so the inspectors wouldn't see the information they would see um an undertaking from the whoever the building control body was that they'd assessed it so that could be a communication it could be an email it could they they
02:45:16 could be an email it could they they could have even met the building troll surveyor the for the other um approved inspector or local authority on site
02:45:24 site why was nhbc's warranty team simply accepting the approach of building control officers and not doing their own assessment
02:45:36 um
02:45:43 in terms of again in terms of your yes you are relying on the the professionalism and the expertise of the the other building troll body but there was no reason to doubt that they hadn't done that
02:45:54 doubt that they hadn't done that assessment or weren't comfortable with the materials that we use it wasn't just used for the use of k-15 or for other you know there would be other areas as well were you not concerned to hear that k-15 was
02:46:06 you not concerned to hear that k-15 was being accepted in every instance by building control officers at least according to phil pettinger it made me more aware of the fact that what was happening in industry with this
02:46:17 what was happening in industry with this material made me more you know determined to to solve it and move forward with a solution
02:46:32 no uh i maybe my question wasn't clear enough
02:46:36 enough um
02:46:38 um the reason i'm suggesting that you ought to have been extremely concerned to hear that k-15 was being accepted by uh building officers was was because an hbc was warranting the use of k-15 above 18
02:46:49 was warranting the use of k-15 above 18 meters in circumstances where it wasn't compliant with the building regulations which you knew by early april 2014 at the latest
02:47:00 my focus at this time was on
02:47:03 was on building regulations and building control compliance and ensuring that we had an information enough information to be able to issue the the billing trial final certificate my
02:47:13 my involvement from from warranty was not necessarily in our historic portfolio of warranty buildings that wasn't my that wasn't my area of expertise or my area of you know what nhbc employed me
02:47:27 area of you know what nhbc employed me to do
02:47:28 to do whose was it that would be others within the organization so the executive board the board itself executive committee did anybody to your knowledge go to the executive board or
02:47:40 knowledge go to the executive board or the executive committee and tell them that there was as you had now discovered a historical overhang of buildings over 18 meters which had used k15
02:47:54 18 meters which had used k15 in the external buildup which was not compliant with the building regulations and that therefore at the nhbc had a potentially enormous exposure
02:48:09 i and john lewis prepared a report for
02:48:14 for um
02:48:16 um our senior managers which highlighted the
02:48:20 the the issues we've had and the discussions we've had with kingspan k15 and which
02:48:28 and which proposed a way forward
02:48:32 i understand that report was taken to the board
02:48:39 by ian davis who was the operations director at the time i'm not sure of the discussions which happened at the board in respect of that or whether indeed they discussed any legacy or whatever
02:48:52 they discussed any legacy or whatever what was the nhpc's stance on k-15 and combustible materials a factor in whether they were winning work in the market
02:49:01 no
02:49:04 was the pressure from builders to allow combustible materials in external walls the reason why despite being aware from late 2013 of the dangers that they posed the nhbc was still accepting them as
02:49:16 the nhbc was still accepting them as that april 2014
02:49:21 no had any combustible insulation materials been refused on buildings by the time of phil pettinger's email i don't know
02:49:41 that's right isn't it that the situation with kingspan progressed beyond april 2014 throughout the rest of that year with uh threats made by an hbc that they
02:49:53 with uh threats made by an hbc that they would refuse to sanction the use of k-15 over 18 meters without further testing that's correct yes but in fact the nhbc didn't follow through on those threats did it at any time during that year
02:50:05 did it at any time during that year it didn't know no why is that
02:50:12 kingspan would continually come back with
02:50:18 counterproposals in terms of testing was still happening report they were still awaiting the outcome of reports they were going to involve um arab who was a well-respected fire
02:50:29 um arab who was a well-respected fire engineer in terms of doing an assessment against those reports so they're are always there was as we went through those meetings um
02:50:41 um they were there were always um sort of reasons put forward as to why they hadn't fulfilled the promises from before but always that we're still working on it we're trying hard
02:50:52 working on it we're trying hard and
02:50:54 and the promise of further information to arrive
02:50:56 arrive mr chairman i've got about five more minutes of questions on this line and then we go to a totally different topic i'd quite like to finish it off if we can
02:51:04 can you could put up with another five minutes i think mr evans could you i can yeah yes yes very well thank you mr chairman i want to draw your attention mr evans to uh the witness statement of dr malcolm rochford or who was the
02:51:15 dr malcolm rochford or who was the technical director at kingspan at this time 2014. can we go to it please at kin408838
02:51:24 page 42.
02:51:33 and on that page of paragraph 10.2 he says
02:51:37 says as far as i can recall kingspan regarded the nhbc as as playing a critical role in the sale of certain insulation products to construction areas
02:51:49 products to construction areas it was seen as critical to ensure that the nhbc was content with kingspence products in order to maximize the sale of those products into construction areas in which the nh nhbc played a role
02:52:04 areas in which the nh nhbc played a role was there any pressure lobbying of the nhbc by kingspan or other manufacturer
02:52:15 no not to me there were obviously as we met and requested information there were promises of information to come and i now know obviously from listening
02:52:26 and i now know obviously from listening to information and previous information from the inquiry that some of that was was not entirely truthful um
02:52:35 um but i i wouldn't no not lobbying to accept it no no they were they seemed genuine to start off with
02:52:42 with in terms of wanting to provide that information and work with us um
02:52:47 um and
02:52:48 and you know as we went through that year they kept making promises which weren't fulfilled and that's where we came to the position where we eventually changed our position and i think you accept that if you don't please tell me but do you accept that
02:53:00 please tell me but do you accept that the nhbc should have been more assertive with kingspan and actually stopped accepting
02:53:05 accepting k-15 instead of just making empty threats while routinely accepting their combustible insulation on any old high-rise regardless of how close it was to the 2005 buildup
02:53:16 to the 2005 buildup we should have been more assertive in getting that information sooner or changing our position sooner yes and being blunt why did you not simply show them who was boss and shut them down instead of rolling over and
02:53:27 them down instead of rolling over and playing nice
02:53:33 i'm not sure i would turn it as rolling over and playing nice we were trying to we were trying to work with the manufacturer
02:53:43 i'd never the previous manufactured we'd work with the furnished information you know would eventually give us that information we needed they would be able to demonstrate that compliance there was no reason to
02:53:55 that compliance there was no reason to suspect at this point that kingspan in the early stages with kingsman they weren't going to be able to do that can i suggest a reason why you you weren't tougher with them and that is because had you been tougher
02:54:07 and that is because had you been tougher with them you would have had as you put it upheaval or as one of the emails puts it a barrage of claims from a myriad building owners
02:54:20 my concern and my folks at the time was not on
02:54:23 not on the historic projects my concern was with the buildings which were presently going through the design and yes one of one of the things that i did consider uh we did
02:54:34 the things that i did consider uh we did consider was that if we'd um at that point had a knee-jerk reaction and stopped
02:54:38 stopped accepting it or started accepting it in designs going forward it could have provided a lot of disruption but we were making that decision at that point on
02:54:50 making that decision at that point on the only information we had at that point was positive we didn't have all the facts
02:54:54 the facts at that point and we wanted to give ourselves the opportunity to get all of those facts before we made any decision like that um and the facts were facts which would provide
02:55:06 were facts which would provide rock-solid reassurance both that continuing to use k-15 over 18 meters in other build-ups was safe and that historically it had been safe but until you had those facts
02:55:19 until you had those facts you could only conclude that the situation was unsafe surely
02:55:28 i had no information at that time that it was not safe so i the the information i had at the time was was was positive in terms of the use of that material we had the bba
02:55:40 the use of that material we had the bba certificate which said it could be used in certain conditions if those conditions were met and we as part of that we had a test which
02:55:49 which was positive we had no uh information relating to any failed tests at that time at that point we asked kingspan in the early meetings if they had any failed tests they said they
02:56:00 they had any failed tests they said they hadn't i now know from listening to evidence early in the quarry that that wasn't true um
02:56:08 um but
02:56:09 but yeah so i
02:56:11 yeah so i we would always try as long as i've been in building control it's been a collaborative function in terms of working with the in builders and industry to to build safe
02:56:23 builders and industry to to build safe buildings i saw this as no different to that in terms of my approach does it come to this that the nhbc allowed a non-compliant insulation
02:56:35 allowed a non-compliant insulation product to continue to be built into new buildings and to remain on countless others
02:56:41 others putting their occupants at risk merely because you had no evidence that it wasn't safe
02:56:57 sorry could you repeat the question yes
02:57:01 yes an hbc do you accept on what you've been telling us that the nhbc's approach was to allow a non-compliant insulation product
02:57:10 product to continue to be built into new buildings and to remain on countless others
02:57:15 others putting their occupants at risk merely because you had no evidence or no evidence yet that the material wasn't safe
02:57:29 at this stage my focus and my remit was to look at the future in terms of moving forward and being able to provide or being able to
02:57:42 being able to provide or being able to allow builders get builders to be able to give us the information to demonstrate compliance with the building regulations i had no part to play that time in terms of our legacy projects
02:57:54 of our legacy projects mr chairman i'm grateful and i'm grateful to the prescriber as well for allowing us to sit a little bit late um but is that a convenient moment i think it is yes well i think that is a good point to stop the day mr evans we'll
02:58:05 point to stop the day mr evans we'll we'll finish there we'll resume i'm afraid tomorrow morning please at ten o'clock
02:58:09 o'clock and in the meantime as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it all right and we'll see you at 10 o'clock tomorrow if you'd like to give the usher now thank you
02:58:29 thank you very much mr millet 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you mr chairman