Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea / BSR Evidence - Thursday 20th May 2021 (2/2)
00:00:35 Yes, Mr. Millet. Now you have another witness for us. Mr. Chairman, I do. Uh, may I please now call Miss Judith Blakeman? Thank you.
00:00:51 Good afternoon, Mrs. Blakeman. Good afternoon, Muzz. Miss Blakeman. Muzz.
00:00:55 Muzz. Yes. I'm sorry. A fine. Uh, I understand that you're going to make the affirmation. Yes. Could you read the words on the screen, then, please? I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I
00:01:06 declare and affirm that the evidence I should give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Do sit down and make yourself comfortable.
00:01:18 Yes, Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, thank you. M Blakeman, good afternoon. Can I can I begin by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations. We're extremely grateful to you. Uh my questions are intended to
00:01:31 to you. Uh my questions are intended to be short and simple. Sometimes they are anything but. If you want me to repeat a question or put it in a different way, I'm I'm very happy to do that. May I also ask you please not to nod or shake
00:01:42 also ask you please not to nod or shake your head, but to say yes or no as the case may be. Also, please to keep your voice up so that the person who's sitting to your right can get down everything you say fully and clearly.
00:01:53 everything you say fully and clearly. Thank you. Now, uh if you need a break at any time other than the scheduled breaks that uh we are going to take during the course of your evidence, then please just say and we can take a take a break to suit you. Now, you've made uh um one
00:02:05 you. Now, you've made uh um one statement to the inquiry and I believe three to the Metropolitan Police. Is that right? Um, I thought I'd made two to the Metropolitan Police and there's an inaccuracy and a typo in the
00:02:16 there's an inaccuracy and a typo in the second Metropolitan Police statement. Right. Well, let's look at your inquiry statement and the ones we're going to look at. RBK 3054461. May we have that up on the screen, please?
00:02:28 please? Is that the first page of your inquiry witness statement? Yes.
00:02:32 Yes. Uh, and if you go to page 29, you'll see a signature there above a date. The date is the 11th of October, 2019. Uh, and there's a signature. Can you confirm that that's your signature? That's right. Uh, I'm going to call that your inquiry
00:02:44 Uh, I'm going to call that your inquiry statement. Uh, can we go to ME3021448 next, please?
00:02:52 I Is that the first of your Metropolitan Police statements? Probably. I can't remember. Uh, it's dated the 7th of July, right? Yeah.
00:03:00 Yeah. 2017. Does that help? Yeah. Yeah. Uh, c can you confirm that that is your statement? There's no signature on it. Yes,
00:03:06 Yes, it is. I'll call that your first statement to the Metropolitan Police or MPS. Uh there's a statement uh at ME30's 45751.
00:03:17 45751. Can we have that up please?
00:03:21 Uh that's a a a statement uh which has your name and signature on it, I believe. Is that correct? Yes.
00:03:29 Yes. Uh with the date of the 20 28th of June, 2019.
00:03:32 2019. Yes.
00:03:33 Yes. Uh and I'll call that your second statement. And then there's also a statement ME 3065151 if we can have that up please which also
00:03:44 if we can have that up please which also looks like a Metropolitan Police statement. Is that correct? Um I think so. Yeah. Yes. Uh and that has your name and signature on it. Is can you confirm that that is your signature? That's my signature. Yeah.
00:03:55 That's my signature. Yeah. Yes. And it it's above the date 10th of February 2020. And I'll call that your third police statement. Okay. Right. Yeah. Have you read these statements that I've shown you recently? I've read the long one, the middle one, the June one,
00:04:08 one, the middle one, the June one, right? Uh the uh you say the June one, you mean the one uh uh the first the one I submitted to this inquiry? Yes.
00:04:19 Yes. Right. Um do do I take it that you haven't read your other statements recently?
00:04:23 recently? No.
00:04:24 No. I see. Um
00:04:25 I see. Um I've read the witness statement. The the inquiry witness. The inquiry. Yeah. Let's just be absolutely clear. Can we have that back, please? RBK 3054461.
00:04:38 You've read that statement recently? I've read that this morning. Yeah. Thank you. Can you confirm that the contents of that statement are true? Yes, to the best of my ability to remember. Yeah. Thank you. And can you confirm uh that
00:04:49 Thank you. And can you confirm uh that the contents of the other statements that I've shown you are also true to the best of your recollection? Apart from the typo and the misremembered bit on page one of the June statement. Uh can you then identify that for me?
00:05:01 Uh can you then identify that for me? Can we have that back please? M3045751.
00:05:09 That's what you call the June statement. Uh yes. In the last paragraph it says at the very end of 2013
00:05:18 as I was the labor groups housing spokesperson I was appointed to serve on the board of the TMO. It should re at the very end of 2012 and I wasn't the Labor group's housing
00:05:29 and I wasn't the Labor group's housing spokesperson until 2014. I see. Thank you. Sub subject to that correction, can you confirm that the contents of this witness statement are true? Yes.
00:05:36 Yes. Yes. Thank you. Now, I want to ask you about your background. Um, very briefly, uh, is it right that you, uh, hold a post-graduate certificate in business
00:05:47 post-graduate certificate in business studies.
00:05:49 studies. Yes.
00:05:49 Yes. Yes. And a master's degree in industrial relations. Yes. And I think you at one time in your career acted as a trade union official. Yes.
00:05:59 Yes. Uh a and you I think uh held the position of elected counselor for the Nottingdale ward uh within RBKC. Yes.
00:06:09 Yes. Um and I think you were were I still do. I was going to ask you next. Were you returned on the 6th of May this year? Uh and Gren. No, no, not this year. But we didn't
00:06:20 No, no, not this year. But we didn't have London elections this year for council.
00:06:22 council. Sorry. Last year. Uh no, 2018. Right. I see. But Grenfell Tower is located in your ward, is it? Yes.
00:06:30 Yes. And you've held, is this right? You've held that position since 2010. Yes.
00:06:35 Yes. Yes. Uh, and I think that was, were new ward boundaries created in that year? Yes.
00:06:41 Yes. Yes. And before that, is this right? You were an elected counselor at RBKC from 1978.
00:06:48 1978. Yes. With a 4-year break from 1990 to 1994.
00:06:52 1994. Yes. Uh, and an RBKC counselor. Uh as such you held I think a number of positions. Yes. Committee positions. Um and they included did they the housing and
00:07:03 included did they the housing and property scrutiny committee. Yes.
00:07:06 Yes. Uh and the licensing committee and appeals panel. Yes.
00:07:11 Yes. Um so far as the housing and property scrutiny committee uh uh is concerned. Can you confirm the dates of your membership? Uh the housing committee I think it was
00:07:22 Uh the housing committee I think it was 2014 to 2019. I'm not sure about the the date I stopped. It might have been 2018, right?
00:07:30 right? But you started in 2014. Yes.
00:07:32 Yes. Do you remember when in 2014? Would have been in the May. May. Yeah. So May we could take it as generally the changeover month for organizational changes within the council. And what about the licensing committee and appeals panel? When did you be become a
00:07:44 appeals panel? When did you be become a member of that? I've been on the licensing committee for a very long time. I forget how long. And the appeals panel doesn't exist any longer.
00:07:53 longer. Right.
00:07:55 Right. Uh now you were elected to the TMO board I believe as a non-executive director. No I was appointed uh when I say elected uh you were appoint you say appointed um let me try
00:08:07 appoint you say appointed um let me try a different word. You were I think nominated
00:08:09 nominated by RBKC and appointed on the b on the basis of that nomination. Yes. Right.
00:08:15 Right. Um, can we look please at TMO883922?
00:08:23 This is a board meeting minute of of the board of the TMO uh relating to a board meeting on the 15th of November 2012.
00:08:34 15th of November 2012. And you can see the list of people present uh and if you look down the list just below halfway down you can see your name. Yes. Yes. council appointed board member. Yes.
00:08:46 Yes. So it looks as if you were a council appointed board member from at least that date. Yes.
00:08:50 Yes. Yes.
00:08:51 Yes. That was the first board meeting I attended.
00:08:53 attended. Thank you. That was my next question. Uh and I think is it right you were a board member uh until 2017? Yes.
00:09:01 Yes. Uh and as a board member, you were also a member of the TMO operations committee. Yes.
00:09:07 Yes. Can you confirm the dates between which you held that position? I think the ops committee I joined in 2013 and again I was on that until I was
00:09:18 and again I was on that until I was removed from the board in 2017.
00:09:22 in 2017. 2017
00:09:24 2017 and was it uh we have a note of you attending an operations committee meeting in the January of 2013. Yeah. Would that be the first time you attended such a Probably. Yes.
00:09:35 Probably. Yes. Right. And we also understand that you were a co-opted member of the Lancaster West EMB.
00:09:42 West EMB. Yes.
00:09:43 Yes. Uh uh and we have a a minute for that meeting uh or for a meeting relating to that from January 2013. Can can you
00:09:54 that from January 2013. Can can you confirm the dates that you were a member of the EM? No, I can't because I gave um all my files on the EM directly to the Metropolitan Police. I didn't think I needed to go back that far.
00:10:05 needed to go back that far. Uh, right. Well, let's see how we go with that because we we can we may look at some EM minutes as we go through. All right. Okay. Um, can I turn then to uh your
00:10:16 Um, can I turn then to uh your understanding of the relationship between the TMO and RBKC? And I'll start if I can please with RBK 3050806.
00:10:31 Now, this is the first page of uh the TMO's uh I'll call it the constitution. It's both. It's the amended memorandum and articles of association together uh
00:10:44 and articles of association together uh of the TMO. Uh and if we look at page two, we can see that the the TMO uh is a company limited by guarantee. Did you understand uh that the TMO was a
00:10:57 Did you understand uh that the TMO was a separate entity from RBKC? Uh officially yes. Officially yes. Unofficially? Well, in in practice, whatever
00:11:08 Well, in in practice, whatever disagreements they may have had with the council, they always um provided a united front. You say they. Who's the they? Um the TMO and the council.
00:11:22 Um the TMO and the council. I see. When facing the outside world. Yes. Right. Did you understand that the TMO's board uh had a primary function under the articles of association to
00:11:34 under the articles of association to ensure the proper day-to-day management of the TMO and its affairs? Yes.
00:11:39 Yes. Uh did you understand that the TMO's decision-making was supposed to be independent from RBKC in theory? Yes. In practice? In practice, I I wouldn't know.
00:11:50 In practice, I I wouldn't know. In practice, you wouldn't know. Well, I in practice as I said before, they produced a united front when challenged
00:12:01 produced a united front when challenged by anyone, right?
00:12:03 right? What does that tell us about the extent to which the TMO's decision making was in reality independent from RBKC?
00:12:16 I don't know. I can't answer that because I mean it's only because of watching the inquiry that I've become aware of the various dissent behind the scenes
00:12:27 behind the scenes right
00:12:28 right between the TMO and the council. I I would ask you to put out of your mind the evidence that you've heard in the inquiry and concentrate on what you remember from the time that we're
00:12:39 remember from the time that we're looking at if we can. Obviously, I know it's difficult to to do that, but but uh in in your own experience at the time, was the the decision-m by the board of
00:12:50 was the the decision-m by the board of the TMO genuinely independent from RBKC? That's a broad question, but in general, [Applause] I'm not sure I can answer that. I mean,
00:13:02 I'm not sure I can answer that. I mean, it appeared to be independent. Can we look at TMO880530?
00:13:13 This is the first page of, and I'll wait for it to appear, a witness statement of FA Edwards, who was uh chairman of the
00:13:24 FA Edwards, who was uh chairman of the board
00:13:26 board uh
00:13:29 uh at at a particular time. And my first question is, do you remember when FA Edwards was chairman of the TMO board? I think she was chairman the whole time I was on the board. Right.
00:13:39 Right. Uh uh if you look at page three at paragraph 14 of her statement, she says this.
00:13:50 As far as the section in the inquiry's letterheaded oversight is concerned, the way that I understood it very simply was that RBKC was effectively the boss
00:14:01 was that RBKC was effectively the boss in quotation marks. They would hold the purse strings and ultimately decide what the TMO could and could not do. I was aware that the executive team produced reports which were sent to RBKC for
00:14:12 reports which were sent to RBKC for scrutiny.
00:14:15 scrutiny. Did you share FA Edwards understanding of RBKC's relationship with the TMO described in that first sentence there? I think broadly yes. Were you aware that the TMO's
00:14:26 Were you aware that the TMO's relationship with RBKC was governed by a contract, a written contract called the modular management agreement or MMA? You were. Did you ever read the MMA?
00:14:37 were. Did you ever read the MMA? I read the MMA in in depth when it was when the the TMO was first set up in I think 1996 and I hadn't really read it in depth since then. I just looked at the
00:14:49 since then. I just looked at the amendments from time to time. Right. You looked at the amendments from time to time. Did you ever have calls to consult it uh on a problem by problem or question by question basis?
00:15:00 question by question basis? I didn't bother. You didn't bother. Why was that? Um I thought it was a statement of um again it was theoretical rather than practical. Right. Um can I ask you to look at some
00:15:11 Right. Um can I ask you to look at some sections of it bearing in mind that um you thought it was the theoretical rather than practical. Can we go please to RBK 3019006.
00:15:26 This is volume two chapter 2. Mine is volume. Sorry. I've got the first page in front of you. That's that's page one. That is not what I'm showing you. Uh can we go to page 163
00:15:37 to page 163 where we do have volume two, chapter 2, schedule 3 of the 2006 MMA. Yes.
00:15:45 Yes. I should tell you that parts of this document were revised in December 2015. Um now this schedule is entitled principles for the management of major
00:15:56 principles for the management of major work schemes. Um, are you familiar with this schedule? Or were you at one time? Well, possibly in in the 1990s, but certainly not now. Right. Um, let's well, let's see how we
00:16:07 Right. Um, let's well, let's see how we go. Can we get move forward two pages to page 165 and look at paragraph 2.1 under the heading client review group. Uh, and this says uh the neighborhood manager
00:16:20 this says uh the neighborhood manager and project manager will decide whether to establish a client review group or steering group for the project. This will be chaired by a representative of the residents association and will include the neighborhood manager and project manager. The role of this group
00:16:32 project manager. The role of this group will be to act as client for the project review progress in implementing the scheme and focus on those issues which directly concern residents. Where it has decided not to establish a client review group, the residents association will be
00:16:43 group, the residents association will be asked to nominate a representative to join the project team. Were you uh did you ever have calls to see or look at this provision uh during the Granville Tower project?
00:16:55 the Granville Tower project? No.
00:16:57 No. If we look at uh page 167,
00:17:05 paragraph 5.2, there's a provision dealing with consultancy services manager. Uh and
00:17:14 Uh and it it essentially says that uh the uh the says the project manager, consultancy services manager, neighborhood manager and residents association representatives will select suitable consultants with relevant experience.
00:17:26 experience. Uh and then there's a list of consultants including architecture. Were you aware of that provision? No, I wasn't. Uh uh page 174 and I think I the answer
00:17:38 Uh uh page 174 and I think I the answer to this will be the same but help me. Paragraph 15.3 on page 174 uh
00:17:47 uh top of page 175. To ensure the resident's concerns are addressed, the residents association representative can either attend the site meeting or a meeting can be held with the residents association prior to the site meeting. Feedback will be
00:17:59 the site meeting. Feedback will be provided to the residents after the site meeting where necessary. Were you aware of that provision? No. Uh and I I I I take it similarly on page 177 paragraph 22.1 all schemes will
00:18:12 page 177 paragraph 22.1 all schemes will be subject to a post project review. You weren't aware of that provision either.
00:18:20 either. Other than that I was told at the end of the project that there would be a review.
00:18:25 review. We'll come back to that topic later on. But I just just draw that to your attention. But other than that, were you were you were ever were you ever aware? No.
00:18:32 No. Of that provision? Well, probably not since 1990s. Right.
00:18:37 Right. So, can we take it that you never had had calls to refer to them in in support of your work on behalf of the residents of Granfell Tower? No, I don't think I had an up-to-date copy of the MMA. Right.
00:18:50 Right. uh
00:18:52 uh a as a board member uh
00:18:56 uh of the TMO. Uh was your function nonetheless to make sure that the TMO performed its contractual obligations to RBKC?
00:19:07 RBKC? Yes.
00:19:08 Yes. Uh and to benefit the tenants. Yes.
00:19:11 Yes. And and the lease holders. And and the lease holders certainly. Uh indeed all residents of buildings contained within the TMO stock. Yeah.
00:19:20 Yeah. That being so can can you explain why you weren't familiar or at least um in possession of a working familiarity with at least the provisions I've shown you? I don't think any member of board was I
00:19:31 I don't think any member of board was I mean I may be wrong but um right during your time as board member did anybody ever have calls to examine any provision in the MMA? Um, when I was on the EMB, there were
00:19:42 Um, when I was on the EMB, there were some amendments made, but not since then.
00:19:45 then. Right. Can you can you remember the dates of that? Oh, criy. Well, before the EM um was abolished. Not long before the EM was abolished. I forget what year it was
00:19:56 abolished. I forget what year it was abolished in. Well, I'm not sure it was actually Is it right that it was actually abolished or did it just fall into disuse? Uh, no. There were there were two meeting two um residence meetings and at
00:20:08 meeting two um residence meetings and at the second one I think it was said that it was going to be abandoned, abolished or got rid of. Right. Right.
00:20:19 Right. Right. But other than that it can we take it that that nobody on the TMO board so far as you could detect ever had calls to look into the details of the contractual relationship between the between
00:20:30 relationship between the between not not that I'm aware of. I mean there may have been but I I was certainly not aware of anything. Right. Uh now can we then turn to uh your role as TMO board member and and
00:20:41 your role as TMO board member and and start by looking back at the constitution uh RBK 3050806.
00:20:54 Uh and on that page we see um again the first page. And if we go to page two, we can see article 4.1 of the memorandum under objects and powers. And uh 4.1
00:21:07 under objects and powers. And uh 4.1 says the company is established to manage and maintain the housing stock and ancillary properties of the royal burough uh and in that all other respects to manage its affairs in accordance with the management agreement
00:21:18 accordance with the management agreement dated 28th February 1999 between the Royal Burough and the company as amended from time to time. Uh were you aware of those objects?
00:21:29 Uh were you aware of those objects? Yes.
00:21:29 Yes. Yes. Uh then if we look at the purpose of the board, we can see that set out on page 20 of this document, article 22. And that says
00:21:42 the functions of the board. 221. The board shall be responsible for ensuring that the objects of the company are carried out and for ensuring proper day-to-day management of the company and its affairs. 222. The board should adopt
00:21:54 its affairs. 222. The board should adopt codes of conduct, policies, and standing orders dealing with the conduct of business and the conduct of elections by the company and other such matters as may appear appropriate to the board from time to time. All such codes, policies,
00:22:05 time to time. All such codes, policies, and standing orders shall be made available for inspection upon request by members. Now, it's clearly stated here that the board is the body that bears the responsibility for ensuring that the
00:22:16 the responsibility for ensuring that the TMO carried out its objects, namely managing and maintaining RBKC's housing stock. Were you conscious of that responsibility as a member of the TMO board?
00:22:26 board? Uh the first part, yes, but not ensuring proper day-to-day management. I mean, obviously, we wouldn't have had time to do that.
00:22:36 Uh you wouldn't have time to do ensure the proper dayto-day management, right? Is that not how you saw your function on the board? No.
00:22:44 No. To make sure that day-to-day management was operating uh properly. um to make sure that the board was operating properly. Yes. The company operating properly. Yes. But not day-to-day management.
00:22:55 management. Right. So, just to be very clear, when you were a member of the board, you didn't understand that your role as a director uh a member of the board was to ensure proper day-to-day management of
00:23:06 ensure proper day-to-day management of the company and its affairs. Well, I wouldn't have had the time, and I'd be surprised if other other board members did. I wonder if there's a bit of confusion here. I think what Mr. Millet's asking you to consider is whether you regarded
00:23:17 you to consider is whether you regarded it as part of the board's responsibility not to carry out the day-to-day management but to ensure that it was properly carried out. Oh, right. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Of course.
00:23:38 Um, if we go to uh page uh if we go to uh the TMO1015
00:23:49 897 please. This is something called the TMO board and committee members code of conduct.
00:24:01 Uh and on page one, uh you can see scope and general conduct and behavior. Is that a document you've ever seen before, do you think? Yes,
00:24:09 Yes, it is. Were you familiar with it during your time as a director? You were. Uh and uh it says under scope, board and committee members are expected to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and property. This code sets standards which
00:24:20 property. This code sets standards which will enable members to maintain the values and mission of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organization limited that the CMO and to protect themselves, the organization and its staff from misunderstanding and criticism. This code applies to all
00:24:31 criticism. This code applies to all board and committee members here and after referred to as board members of the organization. It follows best practice of the NHF's excellence in standards code and reflects the TMO's code of governance and its constitution.
00:24:42 code of governance and its constitution. And if you look um a little bit lower down uh the document onto page two please
00:24:48 please paragraph 7 it says this that the role of the board member carries with it certain obligations and responsibilities and each board member has has a fiduciary duty to act in the
00:24:59 has has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the organization. Before they can act, board members are required to sign a statement accepting their obligations and responsibilities. These include representing the values and objectives of the TMO, upholding the
00:25:10 and objectives of the TMO, upholding the TMO's policies and reputation, contributing to and sharing responsibility for board and committee decisions, conduct which is materially in reach of the obligation set by the board for all its members will be will be deemed to be negative conduct.
00:25:24 be deemed to be negative conduct. I wonder if I can summarize it and see if you accept a number of propositions. Do do you accept that you and your fellow board members were required first to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and property? Yes.
00:25:36 conduct and property? Yes. And to act in the best interests of the TMO.
00:25:41 Yes. You don't sound sure. Well, I I um clarified with the Burough's solicitor what my role on the board was. Was it
00:25:53 what my role on the board was. Was it analogous to being a non-executive director? And she said yes. Which meant that I had to be critical where I thought the TMO was going wrong. And if you go on through this code of
00:26:04 And if you go on through this code of conduct, you come to the Nolan principles which include openness, accountability and honesty. Yeah
00:26:13 Yeah in it. Thank you indeed. Um just going on uh were you required to as you understood it represent and uphold TMO values?
00:26:23 values? I don't know what the TMO values were. Uh right. Uh uphold and TMO's policies and reputation. Yes.
00:26:31 Yes. Yes. contribute and share in responsibility for board decisions. Yes.
00:26:36 Yes. Now the role as we can see uh required a fiduciary duty from you to the TMO. Um uh do you agree that that duty included a requirement to exercise independent
00:26:48 a requirement to exercise independent judgment in considering the business of the TMO?
00:26:51 the TMO? Yes.
00:26:53 Yes. And that that independent judgment, do you accept, included scrutiny of decisions taken by TMO officers, uh, executive officers, as well as diligent consideration of any issues
00:27:05 diligent consideration of any issues that were before the board at any particular time? Yes.
00:27:09 Yes. Did you always feel equipped to scrutinize the decisions made by TMO officers?
00:27:16 officers? Uh, no, because I'm not technical. So, how would you Sorry, I don't have um technical building skills. How would you go about scrutinizing
00:27:27 How would you go about scrutinizing their decisions? Well, I I would hope and expect that the people that they employed and the consultants they used uh were aware of what their requirements
00:27:40 uh were aware of what their requirements were.
00:27:40 were. Right. So, you trusted them to get it right.
00:27:43 right. I did. Yes. Yes.
00:27:47 How would trusting them to get it right be objective, independent, ruthless, and robust scrutiny?
00:27:55 Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand. If you trusted them to get it right, and that's really a paraphrase of of what you've described. How could you hold those officers rigorously to account?
00:28:09 those officers rigorously to account? Well, I'm not sure that rigorously I could hold them to account. Right. So, how far would your scrutiny abilities extend in circumstances where
00:28:20 abilities extend in circumstances where you trusted them to get it right? Again, I don't quite understand the question.
00:28:26 question. Well, if you trusted them to get it right,
00:28:28 right, yeah.
00:28:28 yeah. Uh what what um methods would you employ to scrutinize their decisions?
00:28:40 I still I'm still not confused. I mean, I'm still confused by you. You accepted that you would bring an independent judgment to bear uh on decisions made by the TMO and that
00:28:51 uh on decisions made by the TMO and that included decisions made by TMO officers. How would you how would you go about bringing that independent judgment to bear?
00:29:01 Well, I felt I was there to represent mainly the the interest of the residents. Yes. So and I think I was competent to
00:29:12 Yes. So and I think I was competent to represent the interests of residents. Yes.
00:29:17 Yes. And so how would you what kind of questions would you ask TMO executive officers in relation to decisions you wanted to scrutinize?
00:29:37 I'm sorry. I'm baffled. Well, by my question. Yeah. All right. Well, also by the process uh I mean I I don't did not have all the skills
00:29:47 skills Yes.
00:29:47 Yes. required of a TMO officer. So scrutinizing those would have been difficult. Yes, I understand. In part. Well, let's see how maybe the the element of bafflement relating to my
00:29:59 the element of bafflement relating to my question can be cured by looking at some specific examples and we'll do that and see how we go. Uh
00:30:08 did you ever have any training over and above your your general education which you've told us about uh on matters of corporate governance uh or company law procedure or anything like
00:30:20 company law procedure or anything like Uh I did on corporate governance um when I was chair of the community health council.
00:30:28 council. I see. And what and did you were you able to bring the learning you derived from that experience to your role as a board member on the TMO board? Yes. Well, I hope so.
00:30:39 Yes. Well, I hope so. But right you conscious of doing so from time to time. Yes. Yes. Um now let's go to RBK 305461.
00:30:50 This is your inquiry statement, page two, please. And let's look together at paragraph 10. Towards the bottom of your screen, it
00:31:01 Towards the bottom of your screen, it says this. Although the KCTMO is supposed to be residentled, I saw little evidence of this during my time on the board. I found myself as the only Labour nominated board member being
00:31:12 only Labour nominated board member being asked to take up issues on behalf of residents of estates and blocks across the whole of the burough, including concerns about fire safety. The TMO code of conduct seems to restrict the opportunity for rent for tenant and
00:31:24 opportunity for rent for tenant and leaseolder board members to raise issues affecting residents, which is one reason why I felt I was often the only board member speaking on their behalf. Why did you find the board was not residentled?
00:31:37 you find the board was not residentled? Um because basically we received reports from the officers and from the executive team and we were expected to endorse them really.
00:31:50 we were expected to endorse them really. Right. Was was the uh board not comprised of a majority of tenants? No, there was one resident majority.
00:32:04 No, there was one resident majority. Yes. But I I recollect an instance when one of the lease holders wanted to raise an issue relating to lease holders on his estate and he was not allowed to
00:32:15 his estate and he was not allowed to speak.
00:32:17 speak. Right. But but leaving aside that, just in terms of the the general balance of power on the board, um I I just wondered why you say it wasn't resident le when in as a matter of the constitution at
00:32:30 in as a matter of the constitution at least uh the board was required to have residents comprising the majority of its members.
00:32:36 members. Yes, it did. It had a majority of residents. Right.
00:32:41 Right. So can you just help me understand paragraph 10? You say that KCTM is supposed to be resident led. Just pausing there. It was resident led, was it not? Um, in in its constitution,
00:32:53 it not? Um, in in its constitution, in its constitution, yes, but not in practice.
00:32:56 practice. And and was that because the minority of appointees who were not residents would uh would do the leading, if I can put it that way.
00:33:05 that way. Uh well, they would certainly do the leading on things like financial matters,
00:33:09 matters, right? What else? um technical matters where they had more expertise than the residents.
00:33:25 If we go back to the code of conduct, you also refer to that you said it seemed to restrict the opportunity for tenant and leaseolder board members to raise issues affecting residents. Can we
00:33:36 raise issues affecting residents. Can we can we go back to that please? Is it TMO1015897?
00:33:42 Let's look at page four.
00:33:46 On that page, you can see paragraph 24 uh under the heading conduct of meetings.
00:33:55 I'm so sorry. 21. I want 21. We can look at 24 separately. 21. Board members. Can you see? Board members who are residents should regard matters specifically concerning their individual circumstances as a clear and substantial
00:34:08 circumstances as a clear and substantial conflict. Matters affecting residents more generally need only be declared where they create a specific conflict of interest. Uh were you aware of this provision? Yes.
00:34:18 Yes. Yes. What did you understand by affecting residents more generally there?
00:34:24 there? Um well technically they could have raised issues that affected their estate for example. I see. So, so anything wi-i which extended beyond them individually.
00:34:35 which extended beyond them individually. Yes.
00:34:36 Yes. I see. How would a matter of general concern to residents create a specific conflict of interest? What's envisaged as you understood it by that provision? I don't think I had a thought about
00:34:48 I don't think I had a thought about that.
00:34:48 that. Right. C. Can you help me? In what situations would matters affecting residents generally as opposed to personally or individually create create create a conflict of interest that was required to be declared
00:35:04 well if if it had a financial impact upon themselves as an individual. Uh, no. Um, it says here, "Matters affecting residents more generally need only be
00:35:16 residents more generally need only be declared where they create a specific conflict of interest." What what I'm interested in is what what sort of general matters affecting residents could could create a specific conflict
00:35:28 could could create a specific conflict of interest. I don't know. Right.
00:35:32 Right. Well, do you think it might apply, for example,
00:35:36 example, if the TMO board were considering uh
00:35:41 uh taking a step which would affect financially the residents of a particular estate, one of whom was on the board? It could do. Yeah.
00:35:56 Did that situation ever arise in practice to your to your record? I think it may have done in the case that I just quoted. I don't know. I I didn't know enough about the issue.
00:36:07 about the issue. Right.
00:36:11 And what about raising matters on behalf of a particular single resident? Did that ever create a clear and substantial or specific conflict? I don't recollect ever anything arising affecting a single individual. Very
00:36:23 affecting a single individual. Very well. Now, if we continue on in this document to page six, please. Let's look at paragraph 40 on that page under the heading reporting issues of serious concern. And it says, "Board
00:36:36 serious concern. And it says, "Board members who wish to raise issues of serious concern should do so through the chair. If this is not appropriate, the matter should be raised with the chief executive or company secretary. The TMA will ensure that board members who
00:36:47 will ensure that board members who report in good faith issues of serious concern are protected from reprisal and/or victimization. Were you familiar with that procedure?
00:36:58 Were you familiar with that procedure? Uh yes.
00:36:59 Uh yes. What did you understand to qualify as serious concern here? I don't know. You don't know? Did did you ever have occasion to consider that question? Uh well certainly in the case of the TMO
00:37:12 Uh well certainly in the case of the TMO review of the Grenful Tower project. Yes. Right. Did you understand this provision to prohibit the raising of serious concerns with all board all TMO board members? It doesn't say prohibit.
00:37:23 It doesn't say prohibit. No. No, it doesn't. But did you consider that that was its effect? Well, if if one had announced that one was going to raise an issue and nobody demurred at the time, then one would
00:37:36 demurred at the time, then one would assume that that were correct that one could do that. I see. I mean, did you ever want to raise an issue of serious concern with the board generally, but felt you had to do it only through the chair?
00:37:47 do it only through the chair? No.
00:37:47 No. No.
00:37:50 No. How regularly did you attend board meetings?
00:37:53 meetings? As often as I could. Right. Did you carry out any responsibilities as a TMO board member outside board meetings other than the committees on which you sat?
00:38:05 I don't know. I can't remember. on the whole was that your understanding or opinion perhaps at the time that the constitution and the governance structure of the TMO gave
00:38:17 structure of the TMO gave in in reality gave ordinary TMO residents fair representation and a clear voice in matters of how the TMO was run and what it did.
00:38:30 I got the impression that any tenant would go to their local counselor if they had an issue with the TMO.
00:38:42 Yes. That's not that's not quite an answer to my my question. Can I just press you a bit? Did was it your view at the time that the way the TMO was set up in practice did allow ordinary residents
00:38:54 in practice did allow ordinary residents of buildings in the TMO stock a fair representation and a clear voice in respect of how the TMO was run and what it did?
00:39:02 it did? No.
00:39:02 No. No. Did you ever raise that question, a rather general structural question with anybody within the TMA? Not as a structural question. No. Yeah.
00:39:13 Not as a structural question. No. Yeah. Did you ever raise that question with anyone at RBKC? I can't remember. I may have done. I can't remember. Right.
00:39:22 Right. If if you had done, who might it have been? Do you know? It would probably have been with a ward colleague or somebody like that or a group colleague. I see. Um I'd like to ask you now about
00:39:35 I see. Um I'd like to ask you now about some further details about the scope of your responsibilities as a ward counselor. I in in in outline, can you help us? What were your responsibilities as a ward counselor?
00:39:46 as a ward counselor? Um to advocate on behalf of residents of the ward. Um to attend scrutiny meetings,
00:39:54 meetings, to attend council meetings.
00:39:59 I used to walk around the ward a lot to see what was going on, but that's because I had the time occasionally to do so.
00:40:06 do so. um
00:40:10 can't remove well. Right.
00:40:13 Right. How would have you become aware of concerns
00:40:16 concerns uh held or felt by residents within your ward?
00:40:20 ward? They would either send me an email or they might ring me or they might come to the council's surgery. Right. And how often did you hel hold your surgery? Twice a month. Twice a month.
00:40:31 Twice a month. Uh,
00:40:33 Uh, could you only raise issues on behalf of residents if asked by them to do so or could you and or did you do so off your own bat?
00:40:40 own bat? No. Um, I had to get the permission of the resident to raise an issue which was normally done by just copying them into the email that I sent. Right. I see. So, so the in general was
00:40:53 Right. I see. So, so the in general was email the way in which it was done. The that's the way I did it. Yes. Right. Uh could you or did you feel you could decline to raise a concern raised by a resident with you?
00:41:06 by a resident with you? Um
00:41:07 Um some yes if if they went against the manifesto on which I was elected right would you be able to describe the circumstances in which you would not take forward a resident's concern? Um
00:41:20 take forward a resident's concern? Um well when we were asked for example by a a couple of residents to oppose the building of the Aldrich Academy because it was in our manifesto and it
00:41:32 because it was in our manifesto and it had been since the 1990s that we needed a new secondary school in North Kensington. We were quite happy to oppose the site but not the existence the intention to build it.
00:41:45 the intention to build it. Yes. Thank you. Uh
00:41:50 Uh would you be able to raise concerns with the TMO uh as well in the same way as you would with RBKC? Yes.
00:41:58 Yes. Yeah.
00:42:00 Yeah. Um turning to the membership you had of the housing and property scrutiny committee next. Um I think it's right uh you joined that committee in July 2014. I think it was May 2014.
00:42:11 I think it was May 2014. Uh right. The reason I ask you that um is well let's look at a document RBK30's 14435
00:42:26 uh and this is a meeting of the the 10th of July 2014 of the HPSC. Uh I say July 2014 simply because that's the date of this meeting. Yeah. Do I
00:42:37 the date of this meeting. Yeah. Do I take it you were appointed then in the May and that this was your first at the May annual general meeting of the council. Yes. Yes. I see. And this was the first meeting you attended of that of that committee, right? Um,
00:42:48 right? Um, did did you attend HPSC meetings before you became a member of that committee? Sometimes I would in the in the public gallery. Yes. Right. Let's let's have a look. Um, can we go to RBK30's 29882 please?
00:43:06 This is a minute of a meeting of the HPSC
00:43:11 HPSC uh on the 20th of January 2011. And you could see that you were in attendance. You're the first named in attendance. Yeah.
00:43:17 Yeah. Would you be named in attendance if you were in the public gallery? Yes,
00:43:21 Yes, you would. Well, usually, sometimes I wasn't. Sometimes I was. Right. Uh the impression one gets from just looking at this document is that you were at the table as it were even if
00:43:33 you were at the table as it were even if not a member of right so can you help me a bit because I'm like Mr. Minute possibly I'm a bit puzzled by this when it when the minutes identify people as being in attendance I
00:43:45 identify people as being in attendance I had perhaps wrongly understood that to mean in some formal capacity I invited to attend the meeting not simply as an observer. No, as an observer and
00:43:56 observer. No, as an observer and possibly as a speaking observer, if there was something that I wanted to speak about, I would ask the chairman, but I I wasn't there to otherwise to provide advice or guidance or anything
00:44:07 provide advice or guidance or anything of that nature. I was just there to observe.
00:44:12 observe. Right. Thank you. Uh I see.
00:44:17 Uh I see. Would you say you would ask the chairman? Would that be before the meeting or would you raise your hand and be permitted? I'd raise my hand during the meeting. I follow. Uh similarly RBK 30's 14457.
00:44:36 Uh this is a meeting of the 16th of July 2013.
00:44:40 2013. Uh and you are identified as uh being in in attendance. The second uh name down in the list there again. Were you in the public gallery then?
00:44:51 public gallery then? Yes.
00:44:51 Yes. I see. So it's the same the same. Yeah, the same thing. Yes, I normally only attended those meetings if there was something on the agenda that I was particularly interested in. Right.
00:45:04 I see. Uh, in fact, let's just just look at that minute a little bit more closely. Can we go to page two, please? We can see that under item A5 towards the bottom of that page, there's a
00:45:16 the bottom of that page, there's a Grenfell Tower update which was uh given by Mr. Madison, Mr. Peter Madison. Mhm. Was it that item in respect of which you were in attendance? Yes.
00:45:26 Yes. I see.
00:45:27 I see. So would you attend uh as many HPSC meetings as you could uh relating to Granville Tower even though you weren't
00:45:38 Granville Tower even though you weren't yet on the committee? Well, I'd tried to, but it would depend on whether I was free that particular evening.
00:45:43 evening. As I I say, as many as you could. You did. Yes. Right. Did you have any particular expertise or experience in housing matters? Only what I'd picked up over the years.
00:45:55 Only what I'd picked up over the years. Right. So, can we take it that you never had any training uh on on housing, health and safety, uh matters of that nature?
00:46:03 nature? I had health and safety training in my employment before I retired. Did you have any health and safety training relating specifically to fire safety then? After the fire? Yeah.
00:46:15 After the fire? Yeah. But but during the years you were on uh but during the years you were on the TMO board.
00:46:20 board. No.
00:46:20 No. No.
00:46:21 No. Um can we then look at RBK 305012 please?
00:46:31 Uh and on page one of this part of the uh articles of RBKC which is what we're looking at. This is um this governs scrutiny committees as you can see Miss Blamman
00:46:43 committees as you can see Miss Blamman from the top of the page general remit and under that a general duties of scrutiny committees and you can see five powers set out there and if we go to
00:46:54 powers set out there and if we go to page two
00:46:56 page two can I stop you there because point four exercise the right to call in because of the uh limitations on the calling process it wasn't actually possible for
00:47:07 process it wasn't actually possible for the opposition party to call anything in without the support of somebody from the majority party. I I follow. Would that would would that
00:47:18 I I follow. Would that would would that uh apply to to the other uh powers listed here? Well, we tried to work collegically as far as we possibly could.
00:47:29 far as we possibly could. Yes, certainly. But if for example you wanted as a minority party counselor on this uh
00:47:36 this uh on the scrutiny committee wanted to hold an inquiry into a matter the subject of a report.
00:47:41 a report. You couldn't do that unless you had the majority of the majority. Well unless you had the support of the committee
00:47:46 committee the committee. Yeah. Right. Yes. Um turning to page two.
00:47:56 Yes. Thank you. Turning to page two. You can see that under B uh terms of reference which starts on the previous page uh your what the obligations are to scrutinize and you
00:48:07 obligations are to scrutinize and you can see the list uh at the top of the page and under item uh five we turn to page three.
00:48:20 Sorry, which item five? Item five. Top of page three. The tenant management organization. Uhhuh. Yeah. So you understood, is this right, that one of your jobs as a member
00:48:31 right, that one of your jobs as a member of the housing and property scrutiny committee when you were appointed was to scrutinize the tenant management organization? Yes.
00:48:37 Yes. Yes.
00:48:40 Yes. And that was notwithstanding that you were a member of the board. Yeah.
00:48:44 Yeah. Yes.
00:48:46 Yes. Can we take it that to the extent that that gave rise to a conflict uh in either position, everybody that you were aware of who needed to know about that conflict was aware about it.
00:48:57 about that conflict was aware about it. Aware of I I always declared my membership at the start of the meeting of the TMO board. Very good. Uh can we then go to RBK uh 3054461,
00:49:09 uh 3054461, your inquiry statement, page 8, paragraph 40.
00:49:22 You say there all decisions made by RBKC were made by the cabinet. With regards to housing matters, the main responsibility fell on the cabinet member for housing and property services, which was also the deputy
00:49:33 services, which was also the deputy leader of the council, councelor Rockfielding Melon. Day-to-day responsibility was delegated to the housing department, of which the director was Laura Johnson. The housing department oversaw the activity of the
00:49:45 department oversaw the activity of the KCTMO. The HPSC was there to scrutinize the work of the cabinet member, the housing department at scrutiny committee meetings every approximately every two months and the KCTMO every six months. I
00:49:58 months and the KCTMO every six months. I refer again to JMBB1, a copy of the report to the HPSC dated 10th July 2014 which shows the detail of the information provided to the HPSC.
00:50:11 information provided to the HPSC. If if we consider together please first the work of the housing department. How would HPSC go about scrutinizing the work of that department? Well, they would provide reports and we
00:50:22 Well, they would provide reports and we would question them about the reports if necessary. You say if necessary, what would make it necessary? If if there was something in the report that we didn't understand or that we weren't happy with.
00:50:33 weren't happy with. Right.
00:50:35 Right. What would make you unhappy? And it's a very broad question, but can you give us an an indication of the kind of thing that would lead to unhappiness, which would in turn lead to scrutiny?
00:50:48 would in turn lead to scrutiny? Well, if the report contains something that um we felt was not quite accurate. Right.
00:50:58 Right. Just looking at the face of the document is right. Yeah. Now you've explained that you would receive a report from the housing department every two months a at scrutiny committee. To what extent
00:51:12 a at scrutiny committee. To what extent did you rely on the information provided in that report alone? Well quite significantly right.
00:51:21 right. You say quite significantly. When you were considering a report did you have any other material on the table next to it?
00:51:28 it? No.
00:51:28 No. With which to compare it? No.
00:51:30 No. Right. So you were entirely reliant on the content of what you were given? Yes.
00:51:37 Yes. Did you have the power to request further information if you felt or the committee felt that uh an issue was not adequately addressed in the report?
00:51:48 adequately addressed in the report? Well, yes, because we could ask questions about the report. Yes. But could you ask for further data? I think in theory we could. I don't know if we ever actually did. Right.
00:51:59 Right. Was there any review you undertook or the HPPSC undertook of the systems maintained by RBKC for oversight of the TMO?
00:52:13 oversight of the TMO? I don't recollect. And would it follow that you have no recollection of any review of the systems maintained by RBKC for oversight of the TMO on fire safety?
00:52:25 of the TMO on fire safety? Well, we had the report every six months from the TMO. Yes. But that's and we would ask questions about that. Yes.
00:52:31 Yes. So to the extent that fire safety was a topic, you would rely on those reports and nothing else. Well, we'd question them if necessary. Uh yes, but you'd rely on the data within those reports and nothing else.
00:52:42 within those reports and nothing else. Yes.
00:52:43 Yes. Well, I I personally would rely on the report given to the board as well, which actually helped me to ask questions at the school. I see. So you were in a perhaps enviable
00:52:56 I see. So you were in a perhaps enviable or un enviable a slightly different position.
00:52:59 position. A different position. You knew what the board was being told by the TMO's management. Yes.
00:53:04 Yes. Uh and other members of the scrutiny committee would not. Not necessarily. No. Unless it was included in the report. Yes, I see.
00:53:14 And is you would you use uh data or information or um conclusions perhaps made by TMO officers and given
00:53:26 perhaps made by TMO officers and given to the TMO board when scrutinizing uh the TMOs uh when scrutinizing the reports uh made by housing to the scrutiny committee at RBKC level.
00:53:39 scrutiny committee at RBKC level. I could do yes. Did did you I think so. Yes. On occasion. Not very often.
00:53:43 often. Right.
00:53:46 Right. Uh and I now I I detect that you are in that sense of course because of those dual positions something of a special case. But in general given that the HPSC
00:53:57 case. But in general given that the HPSC didn't have any decision-making power. How was it expected to stay on top of problems it was able to identify and ensure that those problems were were dealt with to its satisfaction?
00:54:09 dealt with to its satisfaction? Well, from time to time working groups were set up. I mean, the there was one a working group was set up about um the Airbnb type issue because that became an
00:54:22 Airbnb type issue because that became an a concern. I didn't sit on that working group, but but it was set up to investigate things like that more thoroughly. Right. Working groups and those were
00:54:33 Right. Working groups and those were working groups. What they were subgroups of the scrutiny committee, were they? But would the members of those working groups have any greater powers of investigation than the scrutiny committee itself? Uh probably because they could look in
00:54:45 Uh probably because they could look in more depth and sometimes they would have um an adviser and and the adviser would be from outside the council or it could be from outside the council or
00:54:56 it could be from outside the council or inside the council. Right. And who would decide whether to set up a working group? The scrutiny committee. Scrutiny committee. And we'll come later uh to what happened
00:55:07 And we'll come later uh to what happened in early 2016 as as a result of the Grenville Tower residents petition. Yes. Uh indeed. But but leaving that topic aside for the moment, do you recall any
00:55:18 aside for the moment, do you recall any working groups being set up at the instance of the scrutiny committee in relation to to housing in relation to the TMO? Let me put it that way.
00:55:28 that way. Um I can't I can't recollect one, but there may have been. Right. Um,
00:55:36 do you know how the scrutiny committee was able to ensure that it knew what quality benchmarks it should be expecting the TMO to meet?
00:55:47 expecting the TMO to meet? No, I don't. I mean, for example, did the scrutiny committee ever get any independent objective criteria or benchmarks with which it could compare what it was being told by
00:56:00 compare what it was being told by housing and in turn by the TMO's board. I know that one of my colleagues actually used to monitor what happened in Islington and she used to occasionally compare what was happening in Kensington to what was happening in
00:56:12 in Kensington to what was happening in Islington. Right. In what respect would she make that comparison? Um well uh the Airbnb working group that I referred to was one instance. Right. Um I think another
00:56:25 instance. Right. Um I think another instance was in relation to so-called affordable housing.
00:56:31 housing. I see. Who was that? Counselor. Councelor Press. Councelor Press. Uh am I right in thinking that there was nobody on the HS on the HPSC who was an
00:56:42 nobody on the HS on the HPSC who was an experienced fire safety professional? Not to my knowledge. So nobody on that committee could could ensure that the TMO's fire safety strategy was not only appropriate but also being complied
00:56:53 appropriate but also being complied with.
00:56:53 with. That's correct. Yeah.
00:56:55 Yeah. Was in practice was the the scrutiny committee highly reliant on RBKC's officers, its executive officers responsible for housing for information about the performance of the TMA.
00:57:07 about the performance of the TMA. Yes.
00:57:07 Yes. Yeah. So, so in practice, I think you've you've already answered this, but but it's right, I think, that the scrutiny committee's scrutiny function was only as good as the information given to it
00:57:18 as good as the information given to it by RBKC's housing officers. That's correct. To what extent was the scrutin scrutiny committee, in your experience, an effective forum for raising tenants
00:57:30 effective forum for raising tenants concerns?
00:57:32 concerns? It didn't discuss individual cases, general cases. general cases like the power surges. I mean I had to write about that
00:57:43 mean I had to write about that to ask them to consider it. Yes. And to that extent using that as an example to what extent in your view was the scrutiny committee an effective forum for dealing with those concerns.
00:57:55 forum for dealing with those concerns. My impression was that they would support the TMO. What gave you that impression? Because they did. Right. Uh did did you ever raise any of
00:58:06 Right. Uh did did you ever raise any of the concerns that residents had raised with you
00:58:11 with you um
00:58:11 um with the HSP with the with the scrutiny committee the HPSC? I think I may have raised the what we referred to as social cleansing. We'll come to that. Okay.
00:58:23 Okay. That's the that's the decant question. Well, it wasn't just the decant question. No, it was um also when a council flat if if a if a an estate had
00:58:34 council flat if if a if a an estate had been chosen for regeneration and some of the flats on that estate became empty, they wouldn't put another tenant in there. They would use them for temporary accommodation, which meant
00:58:46 temporary accommodation, which meant that they didn't have to rehhouse the person that they'd put in in whatever development they produced as a result. Right.
00:58:56 Right. Would
00:58:59 Would the uh scrutiny committee scrutinize the work of a cabinet member? Well, would that was their role? Yeah. Yes. How did it go about doing that? Well, the cabinet member would produce the report and would then be questioned
00:59:11 the report and would then be questioned on it.
00:59:12 on it. I see. But again, the basis of the question would be the report itself. No external information or you may have some external information. Well, very rarely. Yes. Yes. Um, fire safety briefings. Can I
00:59:23 Yes. Um, fire safety briefings. Can I ask you about that? Can you go please to your inquiry statement of page three paragraph 17
00:59:31 you say there we just wait for it to come up at the foot of the page I refer also to two reports to the housing environmental health and adult social care scrutiny committee in 2010 and the HPSC in 2011
00:59:46 committee in 2010 and the HPSC in 2011 although I was not a member of the HPSC at that time. The reports may have been passed to me then, but in any event have been brought to my attention more recently. The first report to the
00:59:57 recently. The first report to the committee on 15th of March 2010 is a joint report by the TMO chief executive Robert Black and the chief housing officer Laura Johnson and is titled LGA report extinguishing the risk a
01:00:08 report extinguishing the risk a councelor's guide to fire safety. I exhibit this as JMBB2. The second report to the committee on 20th of January 2011 is titled fire risk assessments in RBKC residential blocks progress report and I
01:00:21 residential blocks progress report and I exhibit this as JMBB3.
01:00:25 Uh now it's not clear from that that whether you received these documents before the fire at Grenfell Tower. No, I received them after the fire. I see. Right.
01:00:38 I see. Right. Uh well, let's in the light of that then let's see how we go. They both refer, and you may remember this, uh, to something called the LGA guidance for local government association,
01:00:49 local government association, extinguishing the risk of council's guide to fire safety, as you've referred to it.
01:00:53 to it. Um, let's look at that. It's CST4405.
01:01:05 Uh, there it is. Uh, it's from the Chief Fire Officers Association. This is I think you've just confirmed something you got after the fire. Yes. Just to confirm, you never saw this before the fire.
01:01:16 saw this before the fire. No.
01:01:17 No. Was there any discussion ever of this document in any of the board meetings or scrutiny committee meetings you ever attended?
01:01:24 attended? Not that I recollect. Right.
01:01:27 Right. So, I'm going to take it that you weren't provided with this document when you joined the scrutiny committee in May 2014. No. Absolutely not. No. Uh the the the second uh document is
01:01:39 No. Uh the the the second uh document is um RBK 4's 5826.
01:01:51 [Applause]
01:01:55 And if you look at the second email in the chain, uh it says it's well it's from Nicholas Holgate uh to among others Laura Johnson.
01:02:06 Johnson. Uh and what he's doing here is forwarding a a a a document he had received the day before 14th July from Rita Dexter at London Fire.
01:02:19 Rita Dexter at London Fire. uh a and you can see that and the reason I'm asking you about it is that one of the entities to which Mr. Holgate sends this document is HS housing RBKC you see
01:02:32 this document is HS housing RBKC you see that as as one of the people to whom Mr. Holgate sends this email and the subject of the email is two new guides for counselors about fire safety and know the plan and if you look at the email at the foot of the page
01:02:45 the foot of the page uh in the second paragraph Rita Dexter says to Nicholas Holgate uh as part of this work the brigade has produced two guides for counselors to try and assist them in understanding the key issues related to fire safety. One is for use
01:02:56 related to fire safety. One is for use in council and scrutiny meetings and the other for use during estate visits. We want to let counselors in London know these publications are available and to encourage them to use them. And I'm
01:03:07 encourage them to use them. And I'm writing to ask for your help in doing that. Please, could you ensure that the links to the guides are passed on to your members and then if you turn the page, please, to page two, top of the screen, you'll see there are two links.
01:03:19 screen, you'll see there are two links. Counselor guide on fire safety for use during state visits. Councelor guide on fire safety for use during council meetings. And then there's some there's a long passage about the know the plan.
01:03:30 a long passage about the know the plan. Uh now um did we we haven't seen any emails showing that this was forwarded to you specifically or all counselors. Do you remember seeing it? No, not not until after the fire when my
01:03:43 No, not not until after the fire when my colleague councelor Mason wrote to the new I think it was in New Town Clark and obtained a copy of it. Right. Let let me just show you one or two of the documents that that were exhibited and and I'll show you one I
01:03:55 exhibited and and I'll show you one I think to keep it keep it quick. Uh can we go to LFB 401295?
01:04:07 This is the red one. There are two. One was red, one was blue. Red one was for site visits and the blue one, sorry, blue one was for the site visits and the red one as you can see is for use during council meetings. And there's a striking
01:04:19 council meetings. And there's a striking um uh image of a tire block in the shape of a question mark. Do you recall seeing this document before the fire at any time? Not before the fire. No.
01:04:30 Not before the fire. No. No. So you the first time you saw it is after the fire. Yes. Well, after my colleague, councelor Mason wrote and asked for a copy of it and he sent it on to me. Right. C can we take it then that
01:04:41 Right. C can we take it then that notwithstanding the circulation of this document within LBKC, it never never crossed your desk. I wish I had known about it at the time. You you can say that, can you having now familiarize yourself with the document?
01:04:53 familiarize yourself with the document? Yes.
01:04:54 Yes. And and um just just say that we all know. You say, I wish I'd known that about it at the time. What would you have done had you known about it at the time? Well, amongst other things, I would have asked about the arrangements
01:05:06 would have asked about the arrangements for vulnerable residents, right?
01:05:08 right? Because I was aware that I had a lot of vulnerable residents and indeed actually even after the fire, I had two elements of case work. One with the housing association and one with the council
01:05:20 association and one with the council when the residents had come to me and asked for a personal emergency evacuation plan and on both occasions they were refused because the resident did not live in a tower block.
01:05:33 did not live in a tower block. I mean, I've since followed up on those. Right.
01:05:36 Right. Are there other aspects of this document that had you seen at the time, you would have acted upon, do you think? I think I would have asked some of the questions that they suggest. Yes. Right.
01:05:46 Right. Are you able from your insight, knowledge, experience at the time to explain how it came about that you were not provided with this document despite the terms in which Rita Dexter asked for
01:05:57 the terms in which Rita Dexter asked for it to be disseminated? Well, I would imagine it was in the gift of the um whoever received it. And are you able to explain why you didn't get a copy?
01:06:08 didn't get a copy? Well, I don't think anybody on the uh scrutiny committee got a copy. If they did, they wouldn't have got it through the normal scrutiny process. Right.
01:06:20 Right. Sorry, what was the rest of your question?
01:06:21 question? Well, let me try it a different way. Uh does the fact that you never received this document despite the terms in which Miss Dexter asked Mr. Holgate to disseminate it uh indicate that
01:06:33 disseminate it uh indicate that something might have been wrong with the way in which incoming information about fire safety was disseminated to scrutiny committee members? Yes.
01:06:41 Uh can I then turn uh to the question of oversight of fire safety and fire risk assessments both in general terms? Um,
01:06:52 assessments both in general terms? Um, I'm going to assume, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you had never had or have never had, and certainly prior to the fire, never had any training on the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005.
01:07:03 2005. No.
01:07:04 No. Were you ever aware of its provisions? No.
01:07:08 No. I'm going to assume that you never had any training on the guidance that was published as a consequence of those regulations. No.
01:07:14 No. Such as the sleeping guide 2006. No. the local authority um local government association guidance on purpose-built flats 2011.
01:07:26 2011. Uh can we look at RBK 30's 534 53546
01:07:39 uh and on page one you can see I'll just wait for it to come. RBK 30's 53546.
01:07:50 53546. Thank you. Now, at the foot of page one, you'll see an email from you to Robert Black and Laura Johnson at the TMO and OBKC Housing, respectively. 4th of July, 2009.
01:08:02 respectively. 4th of July, 2009. Subject: Tower Blocks. Dear Mr. Black and Miss Johnson. In the light of the tragic fire yesterday in Campberwell, I'd be grateful if we can have risk assessment and report on the
01:08:13 have risk assessment and report on the means of escape in the event of fire covering all the tower blocks in the TMO's ownership within the burough. At Grenfell Tower, for example, because of the council offices and EM offices on
01:08:24 the council offices and EM offices on the lower floors, getting out of this building by the stairs is extremely difficult. One can end up at a dead end. I would like to invite you to accompany
01:08:35 I would like to invite you to accompany uh me up to the top floor to see how difficult it would be to get out of this block in the event of an emergency. I look forward to an early response. Uh
01:08:48 Uh two two things. F of would I be writing thinking that what prompted you to write this email on the 4th of July 2009 was the Lacanel house fire in Sachuk the day before?
01:08:58 before? That's right. I'd seen the report on the news. Um,
01:09:02 news. Um, the first thing that appears to come to your mind, however, is Granfell Tower. Yes.
01:09:07 Yes. Does that tell us that even before the Lacel House fire, you were concerned about the means of escape at Grrenfell Tower in the event of a fire? Well, yes, because there was only the one stairwell and if you lived on the top floor, it actually took about Well,
01:09:19 top floor, it actually took about Well, I mean, I was quite fit then. It took me about half an hour to walk from the top to the bottom. Right.
01:09:25 Right. Were you aware of fire risk assessments as a concept at least in 2009? No,
01:09:35 No, I don't recollect sending this email. I'm glad I did. Um, had you raised your concerns about Grenfell Tower's means of escape, it's its single staircase before the Lal
01:09:46 its single staircase before the Lal House fire in July 2009? I'm I may have done, but I I honestly can't remember. Right.
01:09:54 Right. So this you don't know whether this was the first time that you'd raised this concern with senior management both at the TMO and it may have been the first time that I put it down in writing. Yes.
01:10:05 put it down in writing. Yes. Thank you. Can we look at at Laura Johnson's response please to this which is on page one a little bit higher up. Um she says and this is the 5th of July
01:10:16 Um she says and this is the 5th of July the next day. uh and she's copying uh others at RBKC on it, but it comes also to Robert Black. Councelor Blakeman, the Royal Burough is at present in discussion with the TMO on
01:10:28 present in discussion with the TMO on commissioning consultants to undertake a review of the relevant fire risk assessments of the communal areas of the council blocks as this is legally required by the regulatory reform fire safety order. This process to date has
01:10:39 safety order. This process to date has been managed by the TMO, but it has been brought to our attention by the fire brigade that this will need to be more rigorous. Therefore, officers from the TMO and RBKC are in the process of setting up a working party to look at
01:10:50 setting up a working party to look at and then there are some bullet points and you can see those uh complying with proposed arrangements to set up a contract promptly with a competent fire safety company or consultant etc. Review
01:11:03 safety company or consultant etc. Review challenge and support the consultant's recommendations. Review considerable cost implications and agree how they will be funded. I I haven't read this out fully to you but I'm summarizing or reading them in part. And then she says,
01:11:14 reading them in part. And then she says, "I hope this answers your question in the short term and when we have more information as a result of the review work, we will be able to brief counselors more fully." Regards Laura Johnson, chief housing officer. Um, can
01:11:26 Johnson, chief housing officer. Um, can we take it um, Miss Blakeman, as a that as a consequence of that response, you were aware or had become aware through this email of the existence of the
01:11:37 this email of the existence of the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005?
01:11:40 2005? Well, obviously I would have become aware of it. Whether it sunk in, I really can't remember because it's so long ago.
01:11:47 long ago. You'd become aware of the TMO's need to conduct more rigorous uh fire risk assessments to meet its regulatory requirements. That's essentially what you're saying. Yes. Did you did you ever get an answer to your invitation to a site visit at
01:11:59 your invitation to a site visit at Grenfell Tower to inspect the means of escape?
01:12:01 escape? No, but I wasn't expecting them to agree to it.
01:12:04 to it. Why is that? Well, because I' I'd made invitations before to come and visit parts of where I represented. I mean, not just to the housing department, to other officers, and no, no one had ever agreed to.
01:12:15 agreed to. Right. So, your invitation was issued more in hope than in expectation. Yes.
01:12:18 Yes. Right.
01:12:19 Right. Did all counselors, including you, ever get a fuller briefing on this subject, as Laura Johnson had indicated in the last part of this email? I can't remember.
01:12:33 Uh,
01:12:38 can we look at TMO one trip 0898, please?
01:13:02 Now I I should explain what this is. This is the first page uh of a board pack
01:13:10 pack uh for a TMO board meeting to be held on the 8th of January 2013. And you can see that from the top of the screen. Uh and there's uh an agenda that appears
01:13:24 Uh and there's uh an agenda that appears there. Uh if we go to page two in this board pack, we can see some board minutes of a meeting of the TMO board that had taken place on the 15th of
01:13:35 that had taken place on the 15th of November 2012. Uh and you are listed as present there as a council appointed board member. Yes.
01:13:43 Yes. Yes.
01:13:45 Yes. Uh now at that meeting, you may not recall this, but we'll look at a document. The chief executive gave a report
01:13:54 report that would that would have been customary, would it? Yes. Yes. And and we can see that report at page 12. Uh
01:14:07 and we can see at the foot of page 12 uh the Grenfell Tower regeneration product referred to there. If we go to the report itself, that's at TMO1037986.
01:14:30 And at page 12 of that,
01:14:35 if we go to page 12 in that please, uh we can see uh that this is uh the item for the report. And if you go to page 15 of that document,
01:14:49 we can see here embedded within item five, fire risk assessments. So uh we can you can see that Grenfield had been discussed but at the same time
01:15:01 had been discussed but at the same time here's a report on fire risk assessments and it says this all relevant fire risk assessments for common parts have been completed and the identified works have been categorized from one to five by
01:15:13 been categorized from one to five by risk categories 1 to three are deemed to be mandatory and have been actioned. These are primarily related to the installation of fire doors to tened properties. A number of door installations remain to be completed as part of these works and we are working
01:15:24 part of these works and we are working with internal teams London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, LFIPA and RBKC to progress these. Where necessary, we shall assist RBKC in taking legal action to ensure that these works are
01:15:36 action to ensure that these works are completed. An assessment of the works identified as category four and five recommendations only is being undertaken to establish what action is is to be taken and over what time scale. Notification of the
01:15:48 what time scale. Notification of the requirements of the regulatory reform order fire safety legislation has been sent to all lease holders of a flat advising that they should have their flat entrance doors checked to establish if they provide adequate fire safety. Now we can see from this that FRA the
01:16:00 Now we can see from this that FRA the fire risk assessments produced mandatory works categories by categorized by five levels of risk. Yes. No, it says only one to three are mandatory.
01:16:11 mandatory. Uh
01:16:14 Uh uh yes. Sorry. There are mandatory works, but the works themselves are categorized by five levels of risk. Yes.
01:16:23 Yes. Yes.
01:16:24 Yes. Uh, were you aware that fire risk assessments resulted in mandatory actions?
01:16:29 actions? No.
01:16:29 No. You weren't. Were you aware that in 2012 the significant actions according to Robert Black related to the installation of fire doors?
01:16:40 I don't know. I mean, I recollect that fire so-called fire doors were installed on on um Granville Tower at some stage. Yeah.
01:16:49 Yeah. But not I don't recollect them being installed on Lancaster West Estate generally. Right. Did Did you Did you read this report? You were at the board meeting as we can see, but you would have read the chief executives report.
01:17:01 chief executives report. Yes. Can we then look at the meeting minutes please for the meeting of the 15th of November 2012 for which you were present? It's TMO101898
01:17:12 page three.
01:17:19 If we look at um part or paragraph three, you could see that the chief executive's report is minuteed here as having been delivered.
01:17:30 minuteed here as having been delivered. Uh and then questions were invited on the report and the first item is fire risk assessments.
01:17:38 Uh and it says fire risk assessments. It was queried what action would be taken if lease holders did not ensure that they had an entrance door that was fire risk compliant. Clarification was given that the letter was sent out by RBKC but
01:17:50 that the letter was sent out by RBKC but queries had been dealt with by the home ownership team. A letter had been sent to the fire brigade about their responsibilities on this matter and a subsequent meeting held. And then there's further discussion lower down the page. Uh you can see
01:18:04 lower down the page. Uh you can see therefore that the the question of fire risk assessments and forcing leaseold to have lease holders to have fire risk compliant doors was discussed. Does that tell us that you were aware from quite early on during your membership of the
01:18:15 early on during your membership of the TMO board that the board was concerned with the issue or topic of fire risk assessments? Um
01:18:26 Um yeah, but that was under a separate committee as a rule. We were on the board. We only got what they was included in the chief executive's report and there was a subcommittee
01:18:37 and there was a subcommittee which was I think called the finance audit and risk subcommittee that dealt with fire risk assessments in detail and I was not a member of that.
01:18:48 I was not a member of that. Right. Nonetheless, this is a meeting of the full board, isn't it? Yeah. Uh but can we take it from this document the both the presentation of the chief executives report that I've shown you and uh the discussion we can
01:19:00 shown you and uh the discussion we can see minuteed here that fire risk assessments were or was a topic as a topic discussed by the full board at least?
01:19:08 at least? Yeah. Within the terms of the fire compliant doors because there was an issue about lease holders and who was responsible for ensuring that lease holders did it. Yes.
01:19:19 Yes. Ex. Yes. But I mean for for tenants um obviously the TMO could put the fire resistant doors on where they didn't exist.
01:19:27 exist. Yes. Was there any discussion or consideration given by the board in and from two in 2012 about how the board should go about
01:19:38 about how the board should go about measuring the TMO's progress with FRA uh or the actions arising from FRAS fire risk assessment? That's a long time ago. I really can't remember.
01:19:47 remember. Right. Do you remember whether there was any discussion or consideration of how to measure or track progress uh of closing out FRA items? I think that was delegated to the subcommittee that I just referred to.
01:19:59 subcommittee that I just referred to. And who was on that subcommittee? Can you help?
01:20:01 you help? I have no idea. You weren't? You told us. Who was in charge of the subcommittee? I don't know. You don't know. You mean who was the chair?
01:20:12 You mean who was the chair? Yes.
01:20:13 Yes. I have no idea. Uh who uh who reported to that subcommittee? Do you know? I don't know. Right.
01:20:22 Uh Mr. Chairman, I'm going to just finish off on on this topic uh before asking for a break. We'll take an early slightly earlier break than when we We started a bit early. We started a bit early. Exactly. Can I
01:20:34 We started a bit early. Exactly. Can I ask you um to look please at the minutes of a housing and property scrutiny committee meeting of the 8th of November 2012? 7 days before this TMO board
01:20:46 2012? 7 days before this TMO board meeting. Those minutes are at RBK 3021831.
01:20:56 Now you were not a member of that committee at this date as we know because you joined in May 2014 as you've told us.
01:21:05 told us. Uh nor I think were you in attendance in the public gallery. No.
01:21:10 No. Um nonetheless let me ask you about it. Can we go to page three under item A5? And you can see there that there's a discussion uh of the TMO
01:21:22 that there's a discussion uh of the TMO mid midyear review. Uh and
01:21:26 Uh and uh it says there a third of the way down your screen. The committee expressed continued concern over flat entrance doors in TMO stock that were non-compliant with fire safety standards. Mr. Black responded by
01:21:37 standards. Mr. Black responded by emphasizing the vast majority of the flats were designed to contain fire. He also confirmed the TMO was working with the fire brigade at the highest level and the 68 lease holders with non-compliant doors had been informed by
01:21:48 non-compliant doors had been informed by letter that it was their responsibility to meet the standard and they were responding. Councelor Pascal said that he appreciated the work already carried out on this issue but urged all parties to make as much progress as quickly as
01:22:00 to make as much progress as quickly as possible. Councelor Dent code praised the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower which she felt showed the council had listened to the to those residents
01:22:11 listened to the to those residents Um, it did you realize at the time that the question of flat entrance doors had been raised at scrutiny committee?
01:22:23 been raised at scrutiny committee? Uh, no. But I knew that by that date the fire compliant doors had well the allegedly fire compliant doors had been placed on the doors of all the tenanted
01:22:34 placed on the doors of all the tenanted properties in Grenell Tower.
01:22:38 By that date by November 2012. Yes. Yes. I think they were put in around about 2011 because I remember visiting the tower and noticing the new doors.
01:22:47 doors. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is that a convenient moment for a break? Yes, I think it is. Thank you very much. Well, Mr. Mr. Plankman, we have a break during the afternoon. We're going to take it now. Uh we'll resume at I think
01:23:00 take it now. Uh we'll resume at I think 25 3, please. And I must ask you not to talk about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out of the room. Right. Thank you. Right. Thank you very much.
01:23:19 Right. 25 3. Thank you.
01:40:08 Yes. Would you ask Miss Blakeman to come back in, please?
01:40:23 Thank you. Right, Mr. Bman, ready to carry on? Yes, thank you. Good. Yes. Yes, Mr.
01:40:29 Yes, Mr. Uh, I'm going to turn to the topic of um residents complaints about fire safety maintenance. Can I ask you to start please with TMO845616?
01:40:50 This uh is uh an email in February 2013 at the foot of the screen from Francis O' Conor to you uh copied uh to a number
01:41:02 O' Conor to you uh copied uh to a number of others both at the TMO and within housing at RBKC. It says at the very foot of the page, dear Judith. And then if we turn to page two,
01:41:13 if we turn to page two, he he says, "We're grateful for your recent interventions on the very close windows issue and no less on the Granfell Tower fire safety issue where your intervention appears to have had immediate effect. However, while we
01:41:25 immediate effect. However, while we welcome the proposed fire safety exercise by LFB at Granfell Tower, we still have doubts that this will fully address the issues at this site." And just pausing there, was that a reference
01:41:38 just pausing there, was that a reference to your recent request, the request you had made earlier on that month uh to a for a fire safety exercise to be performed at Grenfell Tower? I think so. Yes.
01:41:49 Yes. And do you agree that your intervention that he refers to had had an immediate effect?
01:41:55 effect? Well, it was good that it did. Yeah. Um if you continue he he says in the next par paragraph but one we have other concerns and other evidence which we have not yet aired. Please see the
01:42:07 have not yet aired. Please see the attached Grenell Tower fire risk assessment from November 2012 which was supplied to us by Janice Ray some weeks ago. Most of the content is of course fairly routine until you get to page 28
01:42:18 fairly routine until you get to page 28 where the following is recorded. quotes, "From the asset records provided to me by the TMO, the emergency lighting and fire alarm systems along with the dry riser, firefighter lifts, and the hose
01:42:29 riser, firefighter lifts, and the hose reels installed in this building are all subject to a maintenance to a maintenance contracts. Testing, servicing, and maintenance is being carried out by professional third party contractors on a planned preventive
01:42:41 contractors on a planned preventive maintenance program with records being kept centrally by TMO at the hub and by the contractor for all these systems. No test certificates have been seen to confirm this. RGE services are under
01:42:54 confirm this. RGE services are under contract to TMO to provide portable firefighting equipment testing, servicing, and maintenance. The fire extinguisher in this building, the basement boiler room, the lift motor room, the ground floor electrical room, plus other areas were out of test date
01:43:06 plus other areas were out of test date according to the contractor's label on the extinguishers. The last test date was on the 8th of August 2011. Some located in the roof level areas had condemned written on them in large black writing with the last test date of 2009
01:43:17 writing with the last test date of 2009 or 2010. This seems to indicate that monthly occupier inspections are not being carried out. Uh and then he goes on about the caretaker uh and uh fire
01:43:29 on about the caretaker uh and uh fire extinguishers etc in the next paragraph. And then on the face of it says Mr. Connor, this is alarming ev evidence of serious ongoing negligence rendered all the more alarming when considered as
01:43:40 the more alarming when considered as part of a history of negligence that in all likelihood stretches back to 2004 and beyond. And then he explains that he had chaired the EM property management committee in 2004.
01:43:52 committee in 2004. Uh and then if you turn the page to page three, second paragraph down, he says this. We were intending to simply expose these failings on our blog rather than waste our time and effort as we had
01:44:03 waste our time and effort as we had previously in non-productive email exchanges with Miss Rumble and Miss Ray who appear as far as we can judge not even to have read the current assessment. However, having witnessed more than once your willingness to act
01:44:14 more than once your willingness to act on the Granville Tower fire safety issue and the speedier responses your interventions tend to elicit, we have decided to copy this material to you first in the hope that you can elicit the necessary urgent responses from the
01:44:25 the necessary urgent responses from the responsible authorities. Now, a number of questions arise on what I've read to you at some length, I'm afraid. First, Francis Okconor, is this right? Had sent you a copy of the fire
01:44:36 right? Had sent you a copy of the fire risk assessment. Well, he said he'd sent me a copy of the fire risk assessment. I only recollect that he sent me one or two pages from it, not the whole uh document. I didn't get the whole document until after the
01:44:48 get the whole document until after the fire.
01:44:48 fire. Right. Did you read what he did send you?
01:44:50 you? Yes.
01:44:50 Yes. I see. Were you aware that residents could ask for copies of fire risk assessments? No. Right. Were you aware of how frequently a fire risk assessment would be carried out?
01:45:01 out? No.
01:45:01 No. Were you concerned at the time to learn that the service and maintenance of fire safety systems at Granfeld Tower was out of date?
01:45:07 of date? Yes.
01:45:08 Yes. Now, Francis Okconor suggested that they were going to blog about the issue rather than email Miss Rumble or Miss Ray. Did you share their view that emails to Miss Rumble and Miss Ray would not be productive?
01:45:21 not be productive? Um, well, they were from time to time. I mean with Siobhan Rumble I had quite a good working relationship. I didn't know Janice Ray. Right.
01:45:31 Right. So with Siobhan Rumble I would often talk to her rather than email her. I see. So So you you didn't share entirely Mr. O' Conor's view that it was
01:45:42 entirely Mr. O' Conor's view that it was a waste of time emailing Miss Rumble. Um
01:45:46 Um well not for me. No. It may may have been for him. Right. Uh did you think that would that there would be a different outcome if you emailed on behalf of the residents rather than the residents emailing these
01:45:58 rather than the residents emailing these uh officers or executives of the TMO themselves directly? From time to time. Yes. Yes. And what would make the difference? Why why from time to time? Um I think sometimes they thought that
01:46:10 Um I think sometimes they thought that some of the residents were just being a nuisance whereas if I sent an email they would at least have to respond to it um diplomatically, right?
01:46:21 So you say from time to time they would think that the residents were just being a nuisance. Was that a was that a frequent occurrence in your experience?
01:46:34 Um how how how can you define frequent? Uh no
01:46:40 Uh no no I can't either. I mean the from I said it
01:46:43 said it happen more than occasionally. More than occasionally. Yeah. only for certain individuals, right? Can you name the certain individuals? Well, certainly Mr. Okconor was one of them, right? Mr. Dafon obviously was another.
01:46:55 Mr. Dafon obviously was another. Yeah, I see. Any others? Mr. Martindale. Um,
01:47:02 Um, can't think of any others off hand. Right.
01:47:08 If we look at your response on page one of this email chain, please. You respond to him on the 18th of February.
01:47:19 Uh and you say this, "Dear Francis, thank you for this. It's very useful. Uh I have asked for a full and comprehensive report once the emergency fire test at Grenell Tower has been conducted and also for this to be an
01:47:30 conducted and also for this to be an item on the Lancaster West EMB meeting agenda. I have also asked for the likely time frame within which we can expect a response.
01:47:39 response. Uh
01:47:41 Uh were you aware at this time of whether the TMO had addressed the issues raised in the FRA? No, but I think they said that they were going to.
01:47:49 going to. Yes. Now the FRA of course was dated November 2012. This was now midFebruary. Yes.
01:47:55 Yes. 2013. Do you know whether they had done so or not? As I don't know. I don't I can't remember. Did you ask anybody? Um I may have asked Shawn Rumble. I don't know. Right. Do you think she was generally
01:48:06 Right. Do you think she was generally responsive to residents in your experience or uh she was rather robust with residents? She didn't um take prisoners as they say.
01:48:14 say. No.
01:48:15 No. But I I I've had quite a good working relationship with her. Right. When you say she didn't take prisoners, do you mean that she more routinely than not rebuffed them in? No. No. No. I don't mean that. No. Um it's it's the next sentence on about um
01:48:29 it's it's the next sentence on about um legitimate and vexacious Sorry. Vexacious complaints. I think sometimes she felt that some of the complaints were just vexacious. Right. Well, let's look at that because I was about to ask you that. You looking
01:48:40 I was about to ask you that. You looking at the the the second and third paragraphs. Um you say, "Just for your information, I'd like to reiterate that the ward counselors are more than willing to address any legitimate concerns and complaints that residents
01:48:52 concerns and complaints that residents raise with regard to the Cal project and the Granville Tower and Verity Close Improvement Works. What we're not what we are no longer prepared to address are complaints that are couched in tendentious, abusive, offensive or
01:49:03 tendentious, abusive, offensive or bullying terms. Neither will we tolerate visits to our surgery that are conducted in a similar fashion. I believe that councelor Karidge has given out much the same message. Um, and then you go on, we
01:49:15 same message. Um, and then you go on, we will not we will also not deal with vexacious complaints that are intended solely to delay the completion of the construction works. We've received and continue to receive a significant amount of feedback from local residents and their most earnest wish is for the
01:49:26 their most earnest wish is for the project to be completed on time and ideally before time. Most residents do not have the opportunity to leave the area for extended holidays to get away from the disruption. Kind regards Judith.
01:49:38 Judith. Um, now in that second paragraph, in that middle sentence, you say, "What we are no longer prepared to address are complaints that are couched in tendentious, abusive, offensive, or
01:49:50 tendentious, abusive, offensive, or bullying terms." What was that a reference to? Um, sometimes, um, well, Mr. Okconor and Mr. Dan would come to our surgery and shout at us.
01:50:03 come to our surgery and shout at us. Why would they do that, do you think? Um, well, at the time I thought they were just being annoying. I gradually realized as the years progressed that it was probably out of frustration as much as anything and they didn't know quite
01:50:14 as anything and they didn't know quite how to move beyond their concerns and the shouting and what to do after that and they found us fairly ineffective. I see. So at the date of this email,
01:50:27 I see. So at the date of this email, were you still in the frame of mind that they were just being annoying? Uh or or or had you yet begun to see that they might have a point? I think at that stage I was to think at the point where I was thinking they were
01:50:38 the point where I was thinking they were just being annoying. Right. Okay. Uh now if we go to LBI 402918
01:50:54 there's further correspondence between you and Francis Okconor about vexacious complaints and Mr. Defon's or Mr. Daffon's behavior. Uh, and you can see
01:51:05 Daffon's behavior. Uh, and you can see there, this is an email that's uh, it's quite hard to to to interpret, but if you look at the top of the page, it's dated 20th of February, 2013. So, two
01:51:16 dated 20th of February, 2013. So, two days after what we've just seen and it's from you uh to a number of people uh who appear to be at um LF the LFB and the TMO
01:51:28 TMO uh and also to um people at Leadbit Bitter and RBKC other counselors. Um but you say, "Dear Francis, I'm assuming that it went to Mr. Okconor. Um
01:51:39 assuming that it went to Mr. Okconor. Um dear Francis, I'm sorry you've taken my email personally and I will give you the courtesy of a response. One, evidence to support my accusations can be found in the very significant body of emails sent to me and to council offices and contractors on behalf of your group,
01:51:51 contractors on behalf of your group, usually, but not exclusively, from Mr. Daffon, over a very long period of time. You may reread them at your leisure. As is evidenced by your reply to me, what may be written by one individual can be
01:52:02 may be written by one individual can be read by the recipient as an attack on upon their good faith. And I certainly feel targeted personally by the tone of these emails since most were addressed to me and not to the other two Notting Barnes ward counselors.
01:52:14 Barnes ward counselors. Uh now, um do you remember uh
01:52:21 uh I should just show you I think you respond you respond to this um but do you remember the gag blog publishing a a blog called
01:52:32 the gag blog publishing a a blog called Pants on Fire? Yes.
01:52:35 Yes. Uh let's look at it. It's IWS 402156.
01:52:49 Uh, and it's dated the 17th of March, 2013. So, 3 weeks or so after your response to Mr. O' Conor.
01:53:02 Uh, and
01:53:05 and there's a a graphic um, in colorful terms in the middle of that page. Uh, with the p something called the pants on fire award. Uh, and uh, if we
01:53:18 pants on fire award. Uh, and uh, if we turn uh, to the next page of this, you can see that that topic so to speak is identified in capital letters. The Grenfell Action Group Pants on Fire Awards. The first award goes to Blakeman
01:53:30 Awards. The first award goes to Blakeman who sells herself whose comeuppance is well overdue and then there's some text below that which is actually on the topic uh of uh of calc in fact uh but um and there's
01:53:42 of calc in fact uh but um and there's quite a lot of detail there which I don't want to overlook necessarily. My question is did you believe at the time that it was because of your exchange with Mr. Okconor that the gag blog published uh its pants on fire blog and
01:53:53 published uh its pants on fire blog and awarded you that honor? It could have been. I honestly can't remember. Right. Do did you hear or see Mr. Daffron give evidence? I watched some of it. Yes.
01:54:06 I watched some of it. Yes. Um, do you agree with him that the TMO had so marginalized, belittled, and ignored him and the residents of Granfell Tower that he had had no choice but to resort to this kind of means of communication in order to make his
01:54:17 communication in order to make his points?
01:54:19 points? I think that goes back to um what I gradually realized was his increasing sense of frustration, right? because he was not very diplomatic in some of his approaches which tended to put people off.
01:54:31 which tended to put people off. Now, in fact, Gag did blog about the findings in the fire risk assessment, that particular topic, looking at the topic itself rather than the the tone of it all,
01:54:40 it all, uh, on the 21st of February, 2013. And we see that at TMO835301.
01:54:54 And I'll just put that up so it's there. That's where that topic was covered. Uh and
01:55:02 and uh it does say that that that a reaction was obtained from Miss Rumble herself. Uh and then there's a further blog on the 5th of March 2013 TMO 0833831
01:55:16 which we'll look at that and the title there is is
01:55:22 if we look at uh that thank you TMO still asleep at the wheel. Um, did you read these specific blogs? Because they covered the topic of the fire risk assessment. Do you remember
01:55:33 fire risk assessment. Do you remember looking at I must have done because I used to read the gag blog quite avidly. Right. Why did you do that? Because it was quite interesting and from time to time they made some very very valid points.
01:55:44 very valid points. Right. So you weren't put off by the tone.
01:55:46 tone. Um, I personally wasn't, but I know that people at TMO were. Right. Uh, now if we look at and the council. Yes. If we look at uh the third paragraph of this blog, 5th of March
01:55:59 paragraph of this blog, 5th of March 2013, TMO still asleep at the wheel. Uh we can see uh that uh it says uh
01:56:09 uh before going public on this issue, we had sent the full report to councelor Judith Blakeman on the 18th of February and copied it simultaneously to the high and mighty at the TMO in RBKC. The only response we got was from councelor
01:56:20 response we got was from councelor Blakeman, which we reproduce below. And there is the text from the email that you sent back to uh Mr. Okconor. And then it says, "Three cheers for Blakeman, but this wasn't her fault to
01:56:31 Blakeman, but this wasn't her fault to begin with." Now, just pausing there, the factual point I want to get out of this is it appears that uh you did receive the full uh the full FRA. Well, so they said, but I was asked
01:56:42 Well, so they said, but I was asked after the fire by some journalists to produce it, and I I searched high and low for it, and I could only find the pages that Mr. Okconor had sent. Right.
01:56:52 Right. Now, just going back to the the question of reading this blog, were you aware at this time whether the TMO took notice of the factual matters set out or identified in these blogs?
01:57:03 identified in these blogs? Well, I think as I said in one of my statements, I used to draw the TMO's attention to the blog from time to time, particularly when I thought that they'd made some very valid points and I was told that the TMO did not read the blog
01:57:14 told that the TMO did not read the blog and I didn't believe them. Right.
01:57:16 Right. I couldn't challenge that position. No. Well, we'll come we'll come to examine that in a little bit more detail shortly.
01:57:23 shortly. Uh if you uh stick with this blog, if you look at the middle of the first paragraph on page one, uh
01:57:36 uh uh which is next to the um line drawing, um it says uh that particular item, which is the a post on the 21st of
01:57:47 which is the a post on the 21st of February, uh that particular item got 91 hits in a single day. So, we know that it sparked a lot of interest and was read by a lot of people. The passage we quoted from the assessment report was highly suggestive of a general failure
01:57:59 highly suggestive of a general failure to inspect and maintain fire safety equipment at at Grenfell Tower and was further suggestive of an ongoing culture of negligence at the TMO. Were you yourself aware of a lot of interest in that blog and that topic at the time?
01:58:12 that blog and that topic at the time? No.
01:58:13 No. Did you agree that there was a culture of negligence, so to speak, at the TMO? Um well an employee of the TMO took me
01:58:24 Um well an employee of the TMO took me to the basement of Grenful Tower. I can't remember whether it was around about that time. I think it was to see the terrible conditions down there. I was quite shocked by what I saw.
01:58:35 was quite shocked by what I saw. What did you see? I saw that the floor was quite um about 2 in deep in water. Um the heating system didn't seem to be
01:58:46 Um the heating system didn't seem to be working properly. Um, I'm trying to remember. It was quite a long time ago. It looked pretty awful. Anyway,
01:58:53 Anyway, but looking at fire safety specifically. So, this blog is very specific on this point about fire safety, a general failure to inspect and maintain fire safety equipment at the at Grenfell Tower.
01:59:03 Tower. Were you aware uh of a culture of negligence, so to speak, in that respect at the TMO? I didn't have the technical knowledge to know that. Right. As a board member of the TMO at
01:59:15 Right. As a board member of the TMO at this at this time, were you concerned to read that some residents, whether or not they spoke for the entirety of the building as a moot point, some residents were identifying
01:59:27 were identifying uh a general failure to inspect and maintain fire safety equipment at Granfell Tower? Were you not concerned that that might put you personally in breach of your duties as a director? Well, I raised them with the chief
01:59:38 Well, I raised them with the chief executive, but I didn't get very far either.
01:59:40 either. Right. And when you got didn't get very far, what did you do next? I don't know. I can't remember. Right. Given the seriousness of the
01:59:51 Right. Given the seriousness of the allegation and given your position and your responsibilities as a board member, can you assist us why you didn't get to the to to to the bottom of it so as to
02:00:02 the to to to the bottom of it so as to discharge to the best of your reasonable abilities your obligations? I don't know. Right.
02:00:08 Right. Uh
02:00:09 Uh it was probably lack of resources and lack of time, right?
02:00:12 right? Because I had a huge workload and I still have a huge workload. Yes.
02:00:17 Yes. And we have no support as an opposition group, no support whatsoever from the council to do our duties. Did you ever consider whether the absence or lack of resources
02:00:30 absence or lack of resources uh was in some respects disabling you from performing your duties as a director of the TMO? Um well, do you put it like that? I think that's quite a good description.
02:00:41 think that's quite a good description. Yeah.
02:00:42 Yeah. Did uh um is this the first time you've ever considered it in those terms? Yes.
02:00:48 Yes. Really?
02:00:49 Really? Well, we we did ask where um our colleague our ne colleagues in neighboring ward in neighboring burs both labor run and conservative run
02:01:00 both labor run and conservative run opposition groups about the same size as ours both had uh dedicated support. We asked that for that before the fire and we asked for that after the fire and all
02:01:12 we asked for that after the fire and all well we asked several times before the fire but each time it was refused and we still have no support. Who did you ask?
02:01:23 Who did you ask? Town cler, right? How did you ask him at meetings or are there um I think whoever was leader of the labor group at the time and I think it was me on one occasion wrote to the town cler and asked for it.
02:01:34 cler and asked for it. Right.
02:01:38 Did you ever think about um suggesting as at a meeting of the board of the TMO that more resources should be provided for scrutinizing some of these things?
02:01:51 for scrutinizing some of these things? I don't know. I may have done, I may not have done. I can't remember. Right. Thank you. Um can I go back please to your ex email
02:02:02 Um can I go back please to your ex email exchange with Mr. Connor TMO845616.
02:02:15 Uh if we go to page one, we looked at this in some detail earlier. You can see uh that you say in this in the first line, I've read this to you already, that you'd ask for a full and
02:02:26 that you'd ask for a full and comprehensive report once the emergency fire test at Grrenfield had been conducted and for that to be an item on the Lancaster West EMB meeting agenda. Now, as as we know, the fire risk assessment had been completed in
02:02:38 assessment had been completed in November 2012. This correspondence was in February 2013. Um, did you um did you ask or did you receive a report for the EM for the
02:02:52 receive a report for the EM for the purposes of giving to the EM? I can't remember. Right.
02:02:55 Right. Because I I haven't been able to read my EM papers because I didn't think they would be particularly relevant and I handed them all over to the Metropolitan Police. Right. Shortly after the fire. Yes. Uh uh uh uh and they would have
02:03:06 Yes. Uh uh uh uh and they would have been disclosed to us and to and and to the core participants of course in turn. My question is why did you my next question is why did you ask for the report to be made to the EM as opposed to the TMO board itself?
02:03:19 to the TMO board itself? Well, I can only assume from this that the EM was still functioning. Uh
02:03:25 Uh but even so, why not ask for the report um to be made uh to the TMO board or for you to receive that report and for you
02:03:37 you to receive that report and for you to give it to the TMO board? Well, I could have given it to the TMO board if I got it.
02:03:42 I got it. My question is why the Lancaster West EMB board rather than the TMO board. Yeah. Well, my answer to that was because I I I suspect that the EM board was still functioning then, right?
02:03:52 right? And that was the appropriate place for it.
02:03:53 it. I see. to just so that I'm clear, are you saying that in or as of February 2013
02:04:00 2013 to to the extent that for the time being the EM was still functioning, it was that board that had responsibility or oversight responsibility for or oversight of uh fire safety matters at
02:04:12 oversight of uh fire safety matters at Granfell Tower. There was a very convoluted relationship between the EM board, the council and the TMO.
02:04:20 the TMO. The TMO sent officers to the EM board meeting, but the EMB board managed Lancaster West, which included Grenful Tower, and then of course the council
02:04:31 Tower, and then of course the council oversaw both of them. By this time though, isn't it right that the MB was not meeting regularly, wasn't properly funded, uh, a, and wasn't really able to
02:04:42 funded, uh, a, and wasn't really able to exercise full and proper oversight over the
02:04:45 the Well, that I don't know because sometimes I wouldn't get papers for EM meetings until after the meeting had actually taken place. Why was that? Uh, because of incompetence on the part
02:04:56 Uh, because of incompetence on the part of the then neighborhood manager. Did you not raise that with them? Yes. And then they changed that position.
02:05:02 position. Given what you could see about the functionality of the EM, why not take that to the TMO TMO board uh and raise it with them because I took it to the council and the council dealt with it. I see. Who did you think was responsible
02:05:15 I see. Who did you think was responsible for oversight of fire safety matters at Granfell Tower for the time that the EM board was still at least notionally functioning? Um, probably the EMO,
02:05:27 Um, probably the EMO, right? Did you ever address and the council did? Right. That sounds confusing. Did you ever address that? Confusing. It was confusing. Did you ever address that confusion and try and sort it out? Well, I I know that I corresponded with
02:05:40 Well, I I know that I corresponded with the council about it and the council eventually appointed a a consultants to produce the report on the EM.
02:05:51 Can we go to TMO830084?
02:05:57 Please. This is an email to you from Janice Ray, who was health and safety director at TMO on the 6th of March, 2013.
02:06:09 TMO on the 6th of March, 2013. And uh
02:06:12 And uh just wait for that to come up. TMO 0830084.
02:06:18 0830084. There it is. Uh dear counselor Blakeman.
02:06:24 Uh and it says uh further to our previous correspondence, when you request that we urge the London Fire Brigade to undertake a fire safety exercise at Grrenful Tower, similar to that undertaken recently at Trellic Tower, I
02:06:35 undertaken recently at Trellic Tower, I can confirm that the LFP initially welcomed this offer. Further, we've placed this on the agenda for our next regular meeting with the LFB's fire safety team leader, which is scheduled to take place next week on the 13th of March, 2013. We will press the LFP for a
02:06:47 March, 2013. We will press the LFP for a time scale when we can expect this exercise to take place and I will of course inform you of the outcome of our discussions. Then it says this with regard to concerns raised about fire extinguishers. Ricky Sams, head of
02:06:59 extinguishers. Ricky Sams, head of building services confirms that all appliances at Grrenful Tower have now been replaced, stroked, inspected as necessary and are current. I would advise that we are currently working closely with the plan maintenance
02:07:10 closely with the plan maintenance contractor who undertakes this work to ensure that all inspections and associated certification on all fire safety equipment throughout the entire housing stock are undertaken in a timely manner, reports are submitted, and
02:07:21 manner, reports are submitted, and continued compliance is ensured. I will contact you again to update you following next week's meeting with the LFB. Did you understand that checks on the fire extinguishers had been done following your email raising that
02:07:33 following your email raising that complaint? It's possible. I don't know. You don't know. Did you understand that the TMO had raised issues with the maintenance contractor in response to your email? Again, it might might have happened because of my email. I don't know.
02:07:45 because of my email. I don't know. Right. Were you concerned that these steps had not already been taken in response to the fire risk assessment? Yes.
02:07:50 Yes. Right. I mean, is is the is the picture that we're getting that that the these matters were only cured or or steps taken towards their cure because you'd raised them rather than in response to
02:08:01 raised them rather than in response to the FRA?
02:08:02 the FRA? That's possible. I don't know. Right. Did you consider raising these issues uh and the issues of reactivity at at a TMO board?
02:08:13 at at a TMO board? We don't see that you did. Why is that? Um I don't know. And what about raising it with the operations committee? The TMO operations committee. Did you raise I can't remember.
02:08:24 I can't remember. Right.
02:08:25 Right. Were you um constitutionally structurally able to raise concerns that you had uh with the operations committee if you wanted to?
02:08:36 if you wanted to? Well, I I couldn't raise issues that were not on the agendas of any of the meetings. I suppose I could have raised issues outside. Right. What about any other business?
02:08:47 Right. What about any other business? Will you you go I don't know honestly. I really don't know. Um, did you ever receive a report to the EM about the maintenance of fire safety equipment? I can't remember.
02:08:58 I can't remember. We haven't seen one. So, the next question is, did you why did you not press for one? It may have been around about the time when the EM was about to go into well about to be abolished,
02:09:09 about to be abolished, right? In which case, why not press for one for presentation at the TMO board? I don't know. I can't remember. Right. or taking to taking to those responsible in the council for the HPSC
02:09:22 responsible in the council for the HPSC scrutiny committee. I can't remember. I mean, I'm I'm one person trying to deal with Grenful Tower, Lancaster West, Nottingwood House, Alamaro, Henry Dickens Court, all
02:09:35 House, Alamaro, Henry Dickens Court, all sorts of places. I mean, I can't focus on just one place. No. Well, that that litany gives us an insight perhaps to how how easy or difficult it was to discharge your
02:09:46 difficult it was to discharge your duties as a director of the TMA. Would that be right? Yeah.
02:09:50 Yeah. Did you ever get any assistance? Did you ever have any assistance uh even though you were a non-executive director as you've explained in in in in the discharge of your functions as a
02:10:02 the discharge of your functions as a director?
02:10:02 director? Yeah.
02:10:05 Yeah. Can we then look in a year ahead to 2014 now by September of that year you were already on the housing and property scrutiny committee uh and you'd been
02:10:18 scrutiny committee uh and you'd been there for some months. Can we look at the minutes of that committee um from the meeting of the 24th of September 2014? We find those at RBK30's 29277.
02:10:34 Uh, and that's the first page. You can see uh the chairman and vice chairman there, councilors Marshall and Makova. And you were you were also there as a
02:10:45 And you were you were also there as a member. Yes. Yes.
02:10:46 Yes. Yes. Uh, and if we look at page five, please
02:10:50 please under section A6, live issues report from director of housing. First paragraph, Miss Johnson introduced the report and invited questions from the committee. The chairman commended officers on their
02:11:01 chairman commended officers on their excellent work on fire doors. Um that comment from the chairman, the HS HPSC chairman was due to Laura Johnson's report, which we can look at if you like, um which noted that only three
02:11:13 like, um which noted that only three lease holder doors across the whole housing stock required replacing. Do you recall that? Uh not off hand, but if there were only three leaseolder doors remaining, that
02:11:24 three leaseolder doors remaining, that would have been a good result. Did yes, that that that is what I mean we can give the reference. That's RBK. That's we should just look at it. RBK 3014527
02:11:34 3014527 please at page six let's dive straight in and pick up the the nugget in it um this is her report page six uh and under fire doors it says under 6.1
02:11:46 fire doors it says under 6.1 uh
02:11:47 uh July it had gone down from 37 to 11 and then this figure has reduced to three non-compliant doors the remainder being confirmed compliant that's what she had put before the committee and you were
02:11:58 put before the committee and you were there
02:11:59 there uh it on the basis of that evidence, is it right that there were at that point now no significant issues so far as you as a member of that committee could see
02:12:11 as a member of that committee could see with either flat entrance doors or the FRA program. Well, we have to take as written what's written there. I mean, if it was wrong,
02:12:23 written there. I mean, if it was wrong, it was wrong. We wouldn't have challenged it. You had no reason to disbelieve what she was telling you. Is that right? Okay. So you had no means of of of getting underneath the data and scrutinizing it at a data level. No.
02:12:36 at a data level. No. And no doubt had no reason to distrust her.
02:12:38 her. No.
02:12:39 No. Can we look at next please at the report prepared for the HPSC meeting on the 13th of May 2015. RBK 2015. It's the next year. Uh RBK 3047681.
02:12:56 Uh, and this is a a live issues report prepared by the director of housing, Laura Johnson, for the HPSC on the 13th of
02:13:07 Johnson, for the HPSC on the 13th of May, 2015. And if you go to paragraph 1.1, you can see the topic there, leaseolder doors. Leaseolder doors identified as non-compliant.
02:13:18 non-compliant. And you can see that paragraphs 1.1 to 1.4, those are all set out. I can't see paragraph 1.4, before, right?
02:13:26 right? Uh, no, you can now. You can now, right? Um, if you if you go to paragraph 1.5, which you can just see. Let's have that more visible. Uh, it's at the foot of page
02:13:38 visible. Uh, it's at the foot of page one. Ongoing work to identify and change non-compliant doors. She says, uh, KCTMA's program of fire risk assessments, FRA, is ongoing and continues to consider the compliance of
02:13:49 continues to consider the compliance of flat entrance doors as they form an integral part of the means of escape from the block. The FRA highlights any flat doors which are potentially non-compliant. Where clarification is required about
02:14:01 Where clarification is required about the standard of a tenant's door, the fire consultant is instructed to attend, carry out an assessment, and produce a report confirming what action is required. Where replacement is required, a repair order is raised for the installation of a suitably fire rated
02:14:13 installation of a suitably fire rated self-closing door. Where a leaseolder's door is highlighted, the home ownership team write to the LE seeking documentation, confirming their doors compliance, and offering an assessment if they're unable to provide this. that Essie is provided with a copy of the
02:14:25 Essie is provided with a copy of the report and where the door is deemed to be non-compliant to date we have worked with the lease holder to persuade them to prioritize its removal. Were you aware were you aware that the program to check front door fire safety compliance
02:14:38 check front door fire safety compliance was continuing at that point? I don't know. I can't remember. It certainly looks as if it was. Is that would that be fair a fair reading of this? Um
02:14:52 well I mean there were 9,000 um properties in the burough. I wouldn't be able to confirm that all of them had been replaced. I knew that ones of interest to me had been replaced. Did
02:15:03 interest to me had been replaced. Did did you or the scrutiny committee generally or the TMO board generally consider whether this program uh of inspection and uh assessment should be
02:15:16 inspection and uh assessment should be benchmarked uh in any way against um other housing authorities elsewhere in the country? I don't recollect anything like that. No.
02:15:30 Can we then go to the minutes of the scrutiny committee on the 13th of May itself
02:15:36 itself uh at which this report was discussed? This is at RBK30's 14448.
02:15:43 14448. Let's look at page one where we can see who was there
02:15:52 and we can see you were there in the halfway down the list of attendees members.
02:15:57 members. Yes. and councelor Rockfielding Melon was also in attendance. And uh if we go please to page two under item A5,
02:16:09 item A5, we can see that it says there, Miss Johnson introduced the report and invited questions from the committee. We've seen the report in response to councelor Bactier. Miss Johnson advised that TMO tenant doors were checked for
02:16:20 that TMO tenant doors were checked for fire safety compliance as part of an annual program and replaced if non-compliant. She agreed to provide an update to the committee on the exact number of non-compliant TMO tenant doors.
02:16:32 tenant doors. Action. Miss Johnson. Councelor Pascal thanked the TMO and officers for the follow-through and the continuing work on fire door compliance. Um, do you know what had prompted
02:16:44 Um, do you know what had prompted councelor Bactier's question or concern at this point midmay 2015? Yeah. Before each scrutiny committee meeting, the Labour members of that would hold a premeating and we would
02:16:55 would hold a premeating and we would determine who would ask what questions. Right.
02:16:59 Right. And you determined that councelor Baxter should ask that question. Is that right? Well, the three of us would have confirmed that he would ask that question. Yes. Right. Um when you got together and determined that he should ask that
02:17:11 determined that he should ask that question, what what can why that question?
02:17:15 question? What was it that prompted that question to be asked? Um, probably because it was something that he felt quite strongly about. I I don't I honestly don't know. I can't remember. Right.
02:17:27 Right. But it would look silly if the same person asked all the questions. Now, I'm not really focusing on on the identity of the council asking the question. What I'm really trying to get at is what prompted the question to be asked.
02:17:37 asked. Ah, I don't know. Can't remember. Right. It indicates on the face of it that that some counselors including him and is this right? you uh were concerned
02:17:48 and is this right? you uh were concerned uh about um the process or progress of the check the checking of tenant doors for safety fire safety compliance. Is that right? Um I think it would indicate an
02:18:01 Um I think it would indicate an awareness of the fact that there was an ongoing program. Well, there was an ongoing program. Yeah.
02:18:07 Yeah. Uh but were you concern was there a concern among the three of you that that program was still ongoing? Well, probably not because these things take time, right? But they they do take time, but
02:18:19 right? But they they do take time, but this is fire safety and so they can't take that much time, can they? Well, no, but I mean the TMO themselves would say that they didn't have the resources to rush anything through, right? Even if it was fire safety.
02:18:30 right? Even if it was fire safety. Yeah. I mean, the in terms of their capital programs, I was always told that they had a separate pot of money for anything urgent under fire safety. So
02:18:42 anything urgent under fire safety. So they could deal with anything that well health and safety not fire safety health and safety anything that came up as an emergency
02:18:49 emergency right
02:18:50 right they could deal with it immediately right um two things flowing from that answer you say they had a separate pot pot of money do you mean the TMO yes
02:18:57 yes right how big was that separate pot of money
02:18:59 money I have no idea in 2015 roughly do you know no idea
02:19:03 no idea and who had control of that separate pot of money
02:19:05 of money well the TMO I mean it would have been part of the money that the housing revenue account provided to the TMO to fulfill their duties and they kept a part of it not not committed to any
02:19:16 part of it not not committed to any works because of um health and safety issues that may have emerged. Yes. But the second thing that arises from your answer was well you say health and safety not fire safety. No health and safety that includes fire
02:19:28 No health and safety that includes fire safety but not not exclusively fire. I see what you mean right. I I I detected from the answer that health and safety did not include fire safety. No no it would all all forms of safety and health. Thank you. Uh
02:19:44 but do I take it from that answer in general that whatever the pot of money was, even though it would cover fire safety, um it it wasn't big enough to cover immediate or urgent um replacement
02:19:56 cover immediate or urgent um replacement of
02:19:58 of uh non-compliant um flatfront doors, tenants flat front. Well, a lot of that would depend on getting access, on having sufficient contractors to do the work. Um,
02:20:09 contractors to do the work. Um, I mean, you can't do it all immediately. No, my question is is directed at the money.
02:20:13 money. The money? Yes. Do do I take it from your evidence so far that the pot of money, however it be, wasn't big enough to fund an urgent flat front door replacement program? I can't remember, but I suspect not. No.
02:20:26 I can't remember, but I suspect not. No. Uh, can we then go further forward in time please to October 2015? TMO0842271.
02:20:40 Uh, this is a deficiency notice. It will be when it comes up. There it is. And it's dated, note the date, 12th of October, 2015.
02:20:52 October, 2015. And it's addressed to Janice Ray at the TMO. and it's a notification of fire safety deficiencies at Adair Tower. And you can see from the second paragraph that the cure date is the 28th of March
02:21:04 that the cure date is the 28th of March 2016.
02:21:07 Uh and if we go to page three,
02:21:15 uh you can see that there is a schedule. Uh and under that schedule you can see that there is a list of the specific contraventions of the fire safety order
02:21:29 contraventions of the fire safety order and they are I'm just following them down the page is uh article 11 on page three which is failure to monitor and review the significant findings to ensure works have been completed. Uh if
02:21:40 ensure works have been completed. Uh if you turn the page please, you can see the next one is 171. Quite long, but basically a failure to ensure that the fire resistance of the protected route was maintained, the
02:21:52 protected route was maintained, the route being compromised by fitting doors that did not have 30 minutes fire protection and some self-closing devices missing.
02:22:00 missing. Article eight at the foot of the page, general fire precautions identified as significant findings in the fire risk assessment not implemented. Now I've
02:22:11 assessment not implemented. Now I've shown you quite a bit of detail there. First question, did you see this notice at the time? Um I don't think so because I wasn't on the finance audit and risk committee.
02:22:23 the finance audit and risk committee. You weren't on the finance. That was a committee that dealt with fire safety. the finance audit and risk committee of the TMO. Yeah.
02:22:33 Yeah. Right.
02:22:34 Right. I mean I have seen this since but I can't remember whether it was before or after. I think it was probably around about the the time of after the Adair Tower fire. Right. Was the fact of this deficiency
02:22:45 Right. Was the fact of this deficiency notice brought to the attention of the board?
02:22:47 board? Yes.
02:22:47 Yes. It was um
02:22:49 It was um well they had no option because it was a very public um fire. I mean there have been other deficiency. No wait no wait a minute. Hey, the fire. This is
02:22:59 This is I not been critical for not remembering the precise sequence of events, but the fire happened 22 days later. Oh, right. In that case, I wouldn't have seen that particular notice until after the fire.
02:23:08 the fire. No. Right. So, for TMO board did not see this document. No.
02:23:14 No. TMO board not until after the fire at the D tower at the time it was issued and similarly weren't made aware of it. No. Right.
02:23:22 Right. Now, go let's can we go back to this subcommittee? You say you wouldn't have seen it because you were not on the uh finance audit and risk committee and you say that was the committee that dealt
02:23:34 say that was the committee that dealt with fire safety. Who was on that committee? I can't remember who headed it. Um I don't know. I can't You'd have to check.
02:23:41 check. I can't remember. You're quite sure there was a subcommittee. Oh yes. Yes. I mean because they received all the um fire safety reports and they dealt with fire safety. Do you
02:23:52 and they dealt with fire safety. Do you know what when you were dealing with Mr. O'Conor's
02:23:57 O'Conor's uh fire safety concerns relating to Granfell Tower in February 2013? Okay.
02:24:02 Okay. Did you not put or seek to put that into the hands of this committee? No, I don't think I knew about the committee at that stage. No, no, I knew about the committee. I didn't know I I assumed it was about finance and audit
02:24:13 assumed it was about finance and audit rather than risk. I didn't realize that it did fire safety as well. When did you learn that? Um, probably after the Adair Tower fire, 31st of October 2015.
02:24:25 31st of October 2015. Okay. Yeah. Right. So, is this right? You you've been on the board of the TMO for some years, but only discovered the that the finance and audit committee dealt with fire safety after October 2015. Is that
02:24:38 fire safety after October 2015. Is that I don't know. We had a session on risk, but I don't recollect it being specifically about fire safety and I can't remember when we had the session on risk.
02:24:54 Right. Well, maybe we'll come back to to look at that later on. But of course you you know that after the Adair fire there were still
02:25:07 the Adair fire there were still continuing questions about fire safety. Yeah.
02:25:09 Yeah. And we know that we'll come to it later in your evidence that you produced two matrices. Yeah. In relation to Granfell Tower. Absolutely. In August 15 and May 16, but those didn't go to any member of that
02:25:20 those didn't go to any member of that subcommittee, did they? As far as I know. Not as far as I know. I mean TMO I think the TMO had them. I'm not sure. I certainly I sent them to the council
02:25:31 I certainly I sent them to the council and the council had overall responsibility for the TMO. So they may or may not have passed them over to the TMO.
02:25:36 TMO. Right.
02:25:38 Right. But you can't tell me anything about this this subcommittee. No, I can't. Right. Um let's then look a little bit more closely at the Adair Tower of Fire
02:25:49 more closely at the Adair Tower of Fire then. Uh
02:25:52 then. Uh as a fact I've said it to you, I'll say it again. The fire broke out uh at Adair Tower on Saturday the 31st of October 2015, 22 days after this deficiency
02:26:03 2015, 22 days after this deficiency notice was was served. Uh and the fire was then raised at scrutiny at the next HPSC meeting on the 5th of November 2015, 5 days later. We
02:26:16 5th of November 2015, 5 days later. We can look at the meeting minutes for that meeting. RBK 3047688 please.
02:26:38 Uh and you can see that uh you were present as one of the members of the committee there. Yes.
02:26:44 Yes. Yes. Uh and if you go to page six please A7 live issues report you could see live issues report by the director of housing Mr. Black uh provided an up and he was
02:26:56 Mr. Black uh provided an up and he was the CEO in fact provided an update on the major fire at Adair Tower which had occurred on Saturday 31st October on the third floor. He reported that the investigation was ongoing but the
02:27:07 investigation was ongoing but the emergency planning in place had worked uh a and the fire doors had also worked well. He explained the timelines for for tenants regaining access to their flats and the rehousing of those unable to
02:27:18 and the rehousing of those unable to return. The chairman stressed the severity of smoke damage and how that can affect one's possessions. Mr. Black said that the TMO was working with tenants to ascertain what they could still use and he said that it was
02:27:30 still use and he said that it was compulsory for all tenants to have their own home insurance. Councelor Blakeman asked why tenants were led out of smoke fil stairways and consequently had to be treated for smoke inhalation. Mr. Black explained that the policy was to stay in
02:27:42 explained that the policy was to stay in your flat and wait to be rescued by the natural reaction of people was to flee. Uh he said that there was no main alarm system, but the fire brigade had arrived within two to three minutes. Now,
02:27:54 within two to three minutes. Now, there's no mention there in those minutes by Mr. Black of the deficiency notice I showed you that had been served on the 12th of October. Do you remember whether he raised it or
02:28:05 Do you remember whether he raised it or not?
02:28:06 not? I'm sure he didn't. You're sure he didn't? Should it have been raised? Well, I would have thought so. Yes. Yes. And as a board member, would I be writing thinking that you would you would have expected to be told that sort
02:28:17 would have expected to be told that sort of information by the executive? Yes. But I wasn't. No. Now, gi given Mr. Black's statement that I've just read to you is recorded here that people's natural reaction was to flee. Did you question whether the
02:28:29 to flee. Did you question whether the TMO had adequate and safe arrangements in place for for those residents who did wish to or needed to escape during a fire in a block such as Adair Tower?
02:28:42 fire in a block such as Adair Tower? Sorry, I'm not sure what's the question. Well, given that you can see as I've shown you in response to your question that Mr. Black said that the the policy was to stay in your flat
02:28:53 was to stay in your flat and wait to be rescued, but the natural reaction of people was to flee. Given that he said that the pe the people's natural reaction was to flee, did you ask whether the TMO had adequate and
02:29:05 ask whether the TMO had adequate and safe arrangements in place for those residents who either wished to or needed to flee? I may have done because my colleague, Councelor Mason, was present
02:29:16 colleague, Councelor Mason, was present when the uh when when he heard about the fire and I know he was very concerned about it.
02:29:21 about it. Present where? At at a tower in in the building. No, no, he responded. He doesn't live he lives further down the road. He went to the He went to the fire once he was advised of it. Yeah.
02:29:33 he was advised of it. Yeah. Yes. But did you did you So I may have I may have raised that point.
02:29:37 point. You may have read Do you remember whether you got an answer to that to that question? Can't remember.
02:29:44 Now, the stay put policy of course would be irrelevant, wouldn't it, to any resident who either needed to flee, perhaps because the fire was in their own flat or or because they wanted to flee?
02:29:56 or or because they wanted to flee? Yes.
02:29:58 Yes. So, why did nobody challenge Mr. Black with that point? Why did nobody say to Mr. Black, "Well, come on, there would be people wanting to flee. Why have you not got arrangements in place to cater for them?" No, I think further down he
02:30:10 for them?" No, I think further down he reports that a local church had kindly opened its doors to tenants affected. So clearly there was nothing in place. That's to receive people who are chosen to flee. My question was really more directed to enabling them to get out of
02:30:22 directed to enabling them to get out of the building. Well, what I understood about the TMO's policy was that you shouldn't leave the building unless that you were in the the the actual location of the fire.
02:30:35 Indeed, that's what we were told the policy was. Yes. Given that there was an element of flight involved in any fire. Can you explain why nobody asked Mr.
02:30:46 Can you explain why nobody asked Mr. Black, "Well, what do we do with those people who want to get out?" Well, they may have done. I don't know because we're further down. He says that a local church had kindly opened its doors. So, somebody may have asked him.
02:30:57 doors. So, somebody may have asked him. Yes. But the local church would receive people who had successfully got out. Yes. My question is about the management of those people in the process of escape. Did nobody ask Mr. Black, what do we do? How how do we assist those
02:31:09 do we do? How how do we assist those people who want to escape to escape? I don't know. Right. Can we then look at the chief executive's report prepared by Mr. Black
02:31:20 executive's report prepared by Mr. Black uh for
02:31:21 uh for the meeting of the 26th of November 2015 of the TMO board. This is a tmo 086021.
02:31:47 Uh and uh here is the agenda for that meeting. Uh and if we go to page 47, we'll see the report for this from by Mr. Black
02:31:59 Mr. Black as the chief executive 26th of November 2015. And if we go to page 50, we can see the item on Adair Tower embedded in that report under item six, fire at
02:32:13 that report under item six, fire at Adair tower thank yous. Uh there's quite a lot in there. It's a long list of of people to thank. Uh, as we can see, Janice Ray gets the first spot. Uh, and you can see what is
02:32:26 first spot. Uh, and you can see what is said there. And if you cast your eye down the list, you'll see what is there and what isn't there. And what isn't there is any mention in the minutes by Robert Black of the deficiency notice that had been served on the 12th of
02:32:38 that had been served on the 12th of October. I showed you again. Do you know whether he he raised it at that meeting? You say we we saw he didn't at the 5th of November meeting. I don't think so. Right. And again, should it have been raised?
02:32:49 should it have been raised? Yes, of course it should. And again, as a board member, you would have expected to have been provided with that sort of information.
02:33:02 Uh, can we next go please to TMO47421?
02:33:09 This is Robert Black's report for the next TMO board meeting, 4th of January, 2016.
02:33:23 TMO1047421.
02:33:26 [Music] What what will come up I think is the agenda.
02:33:32 That's not very helpful. Uh right
02:33:43 just bear with us for a moment.
02:33:50 Mr. Chairman, I can hear a rumble of thunder and I'm hoping that that the absence of this document and the thunder are not connected. You know, that crossed my mind as well, but I think we ought to we'll wait to see whether both
02:34:01 we'll wait to see whether both wait a bit to see whether we can recover it.
02:34:05 it. Well, we're getting there.
02:34:09 Right, that is exactly where we start. Can we please then go in this pack of documents to page 64?
02:34:23 There is the uh board report by Robert Black as chief uh executive. Uh and can we please look at item five on page 67
02:34:34 on page 67 where that topic is covered tower fire. Uh and he says, "We've been advised by the London Fire Brigade that RBKC stroke TMA will be served with two enforcement
02:34:45 TMA will be served with two enforcement notices as a result of the fire risk assessments the brigade undertook following the fire at Adair Tower. One enforcement notice will cover Adair Tower and one will cover Hazlewood Tower. The two towers were built to the
02:34:56 Tower. The two towers were built to the same design, having two separate staircases, one for accommodation access, the main staircase, and one for emergency, the escape staircase. We have yet to receive the actual notices, but have been advised
02:35:08 have been advised that the key matters of concern relate to the design of the main staircase ventilation system and the lack of self-closes on the individual flatfront doors. It is expected that we should receive the notices in the next week or
02:35:19 receive the notices in the next week or so.
02:35:22 so. Uh uh and then he goes on uh Robert Black has updated Laura Johnson, director of housing for RBKC who has briefed councelor Fielding Melon. Um, did you read, do you remember, did you
02:35:33 did you read, do you remember, did you read this this report before the board meeting? You did. Did you know when you read this report what enforcement notices were? Um, not really. No. Right. I mean, I
02:35:44 Um, not really. No. Right. I mean, I knew that they would be notices requiring works to be done. Did Did you know that uh they were a precursor to possible
02:35:56 they were a precursor to possible criminal prosecution? I think I only became aware of that after the well after this inquiry started. I'm not sure and I mean I know now, right?
02:36:04 right? I don't know if I knew at the time. I can't remember. So So what was your what was your reaction to seeing that the LFB was going to serve two enforcement notices
02:36:15 going to serve two enforcement notices on RBKC and TMO?
02:36:20 Well, my reaction was they're going to serve two enforcement notices. I know and and jolly good too. You you thought you thought that was a good thing? Yeah.
02:36:29 Yeah. Why did you think that was a good thing? Because at the same time, I was having all these concerns about the fire safety at Grrenful Tower and I'd been raising issues there. I see. In your role as member of the TMO
02:36:41 I see. In your role as member of the TMO board, which you still were, I think, at this time, were you not concerned that you were uh a director of a company which was on the receiving end of an an
02:36:53 which was on the receiving end of an an enforcement notice? Yes.
02:36:55 Yes. You were concerned about that? Yes.
02:36:59 Yes. What was your concern in that respect? Well, my concern was it was really bad a bad situation that it had got to that point.
02:37:08 point. Yeah. Uh and did you c can you explain uh
02:37:15 uh what you understood the consequences of the receipt of the enforcement notice would be for the TMO? My understanding of the consequence was that they had to take action very swiftly.
02:37:27 take action very swiftly. I didn't at that stage know that they could then be prosecuted if they didn't. When you read this report, which was of course in in a before the meeting is well, let me ask you, did you read this
02:37:38 well, let me ask you, did you read this report before the meeting? Yes. Um at that stage did you make any further inquiries yourself um about how come things had things had come to such a pass such that the LFB
02:37:51 come to such a pass such that the LFB had issued two enforcement notices. I think I may have done because it was it was very much along the same time as I was expressing concerns about Grenle Tower.
02:38:02 Tower. Who did you ask? Um it may have been Laura Johnson. It may have been the TMO. It may have been Peter Madison. It may have been Janice Ray. I can't remember. What answers were you given? I can't remember. Were you Were you Do you remember
02:38:14 Were you Were you Do you remember whether you were satisfied with what they told you or dissatisfied with what they told you? Whatever it was. I think if I raised it, I would have got the same kind of bland reassurances that
02:38:25 the same kind of bland reassurances that I'd been getting all along. Right.
02:38:29 Right. Bland reassurances in what terms? Don't worry about it. We're on top of it kind of thing. Did you not seek to press them about how
02:38:41 Did you not seek to press them about how come the NFB had served two enforcement notices in respect of this building in circumstances where the TMO had so far as you were being told a reliable and
02:38:52 as you were being told a reliable and effective program for closing out fire risk assessment risk items? Sorry, what was the question? The question uh is did you not seek to press
02:39:04 question uh is did you not seek to press them with the question as follows? How come the LFB has served two enforcement notices in respect of Adair Tower in circumstances where the TMO you're telling me had a reliable and effective
02:39:17 telling me had a reliable and effective program for closing out? I think I may have raised that. Yes. Right. Who did you ask? Well, I may have raised it at the board meeting.
02:39:25 meeting. Okay. At the board meeting. But you didn't ask Laura Johnson, did you? I may have done. I don't know. You don't remember. Um, let's look at the minutes of the board meeting. We'll we'll we'll cover this in the in the
02:39:37 we'll we'll cover this in the in the five minutes we've got left or so, Mr. Chairman, if that's convenient. In fact, there's quite a lot on the board minutes. So, that may be a vain promise. Um, well, does that mean that I think we might want to let looking at
02:39:49 I think we might want to let looking at the number of questions that flow from the minute itself, it's probably sensible given that we've only got four minutes left till 4:30 and we started at we started early. We should call it a day there. Yes. Right. Well, I think
02:40:02 day there. Yes. Right. Well, I think it's uh sensible not to start this topic at this stage. It sounds like it might take a little while. So, we'll break it for the day now. Um I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to come back on Monday to answer some more questions.
02:40:13 Monday to answer some more questions. I'm expecting to come back. I thought you might be good. All right. Well, then we'll resume at 10:00 on Monday, please. And again, I'm going to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it over
02:40:24 evidence or anything to do with it over the break. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right to go to the usher, please.
02:40:43 Right, Mr. Millet. Thank you very much. 10:00 on Monday. Monday morning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.