Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Evidence - Tuesday 11th May 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:12 would you ask ms johnson to come back in please okay

00:00:31 okay all right ready to carry on ms johnson yes good thank you very much yes mr miller thank you mr chairman um ms johnson we were in the early part of 2013

00:00:42 were in the early part of 2013 looking at the project the grenfell tower project and can i now take you please to tm0087971 at page 26.

00:00:54 tmo double zero 879 771 page twenty six uh and look at the right hand side now this is

00:01:02 this is uh mr madison's day book one of eight for the 13th of february 2013 as you can see from the top right hand side

00:01:13 top right hand side and you can see that there is an inscription next to the date what looks like lead bitters

00:01:20 bitters architect apple yards planners and then to the left of that laura grenfell has how ambitious and further down there are some bullet points um do you

00:01:33 there are some bullet points um do you remember meeting mr madison on the 13th of february 2013. no now just looking at the chronology this of course would have been mr madison's first

00:01:42 first month in his role he joined on the 21st of january 2013. so if you you don't deny having a meeting with him at that stage do you no i don't

00:01:52 i don't know um as i've shown you you can see the words grenfell how ambitious can you remember what that was about no i'm afraid i can't uh towards the bottom it says uh after

00:02:03 uh towards the bottom it says uh after quite a lot of manuscript there's some bullet points in the penultimate bullet point is um well the last one is we will be at the table in quotation marks

00:02:14 the table in quotation marks um did you tell peter madison that rbkc would be at the table for the grenfell tower project i don't remember do you deny doing so

00:02:25 i don't remember do you deny doing so um i don't deny and i don't confirm it because i don't remember right um did you tell mr madison in any other meeting around this time

00:02:36 in any other meeting around this time that

00:02:36 that you expected to be involved in the decision making on the grenfell tower project

00:02:42 project um no i don't remember i don't remember how saying a phrase we will be at the table um and i don't remember ever saying to mr madison

00:02:53 mr madison that rbkc would be expected to be part of the decision-making process right i mean to be fair to you mr madison's evidence was that by we he meant the tmo okay does that does that affect your

00:03:04 okay does that does that affect your answers

00:03:05 answers no no um

00:03:14 let's just look briefly then at what mr madison said about this diary entry and his evidence can we have the transcript please for day 58 at page 29 line 19 on that page

00:03:30 at page 29 line 19 on that page uh and

00:03:32 uh and uh you can see i asked him well what did you mean by how ambitious and he said this at answer 20. i think that's about the scope say what we were looking to achieve there i don't remember if this was the meeting

00:03:44 i don't remember if this was the meeting or no so i think this was me checking in with laura as the project sponsor for calc and for the client of the tmo overall to get her perspective on what she wanted us to deliver because this was the first project that

00:03:57 because this was the first project that the tmo had delivered on this scale and this links down to the comment at the bottom we will be at the table and then question um i was going to ask you about that just before we do to follow up on your

00:04:09 just before we do to follow up on your answer just now you were checking in with laura to get her perspective on what she

00:04:12 what she wanted to the tmo to deliver now that sounds to me as if you're going to her and asking her for her view or her instruction going well beyond simply matters of the budget is that fair no i think it's reasonable

00:04:24 is that fair no i think it's reasonable to i mean laura was she was the director of housing she had a good understanding of the politics of the borough

00:04:29 borough the priorities of the council and the councillors and so i wanted to understand what the council wanted the tmo to deliver on their behalf and she was the key point of contact to establish that

00:04:40 establish that now just looking at what i've just shown you there ms johnson do you agree that your conversations with mr madison at around this time went merely went beyond the merely budgetary for the pod

00:04:51 budgetary for the pod project yes yes so is it right that your conversations with him included discussions of what you thought the scope of the project should be um i would have thought that my

00:05:02 um i would have thought that my conversations would be um around the scope of the project which would be based on what the tmo advised rbkc needed to be done to

00:05:11 done to um at done to grenfell tower based on the information that was coming from the keystone asset management database in terms of the residential element and then rb

00:05:22 then rb rbkc had very specific requirements as well about the refurbishment of the nursery

00:05:28 nursery the playground area uh the what was ultimately nine new units at the base it started off at six then went to seven then went to nine um and the new boxing club

00:05:39 um and the new boxing club were you aware that in uh the early part of 2013 so february and march of that year

00:05:45 year artelia were working on the costs with ledbetter to try to bridge the gap on the costs for the grenfell tower project as they then stood

00:05:53 stood i don't remember being specifically aware of it in uh january february of that year but um i would have uh had an understanding maybe from peter madison that there was some work taking place on

00:06:05 that there was some work taking place on the costings yes i see and was he keeping you updated on the progress of those discussions that were being had by the tmo with ledbitter um in very general terms um i did not have a regular meeting with mr madison

00:06:17 have a regular meeting with mr madison as in scheduled every week or every month but

00:06:21 month but if i saw mr black which i did every month then i would have had an update from him

00:06:25 from him or if i saw mr madison at a meeting or exchange of emails then he would have updated me it wasn't a regular diarised update it was more a general update in terms of information do you

00:06:36 update in terms of information do you remember whether in any of your discussions that you did have with peter madison you offered an opinion as to whether or not the grenfell tower project should be reprocured no now let's go back

00:06:49 no now let's go back to your own notebooks your day books please and look at another one

00:06:55 rbk3059573 page 33.

00:07:02 page 33. now bearing in mind that the date of the meeting that mr madison recorded us having with you was the 13th of february 2013

00:07:13 of february 2013 here is your day book for what appears to be the 14th of february 2013. so the following day and it's headed calc sro meeting

00:07:24 and it's headed calc sro meeting and if we turn the page please to page 34 you can see that there's a heading grenfell tower do you see that yes was grenfell tower a standing item on the agenda at sra meetings do you

00:07:36 on the agenda at sra meetings do you recall

00:07:36 recall uh yes it was and um

00:07:42 why was that given that you were the sro for calc

00:07:45 for calc and not for grenfell which was a tma project because of particularly the independencies at the base of the tower so there was an area of land at the

00:07:56 so there was an area of land at the bottom of grenfell tower which was in the ownership of the hra and that required some land swap with the general fund in order to make that park area work and those ambitions in terms of the

00:08:08 and those ambitions in terms of the planning department and the strategic plan for the area looking at how to make the functionality of the bottom of grenfell tower work better

00:08:16 better with the kelp project do you remember meeting peter madison in preparation for this meeting no i don't particularly remember that now if you look at what's said under grenfell tower it says it's the

00:08:28 under grenfell tower it says it's the first arrow 50 over budget and then it goes on to say 12 million current budget 8 million you see that yes and then um

00:08:42 you see that yes and then um the reference to the brand new heating system and new pipes or all new pipes and then it says apple yards estimates two million wide of ledbetter's costs

00:08:53 two million wide of ledbetter's costs one million wide on cladding one million on architectural uh and i can't read that i'm afraid perhaps you can help me with that um that looks like sort of

00:09:07 um that looks like sort of bits and bobs i would normally say but it looks like you know kind of uh uh right fittings and bits looks right something like that okay were you concerned to learn that ledbit is well let me ask it this way

00:09:18 let me ask it this way is this the first occasion on which you found out that apple yards were estimating that ledbetter's costs were so wide of the budget i don't know if this was the first occasion that i was made aware of it

00:09:31 occasion that i was made aware of it i could have been made aware of it in the past that there was a significant cost variance to what we had estimated the project was but this is clearly the first time i've documented it in writing right were you concerned to learn that

00:09:42 were you concerned to learn that ledbetter's costs were over budget um i would have been yes yeah and do you agree that this is where you note well you have noted here that the current budget is eight million was that the current budget at that

00:09:53 was that the current budget at that stage um there must have been a process where we had gone from uh the hunters figures which were around five to six million um to then looking at kind of what the

00:10:04 um to then looking at kind of what the wider project was going to cost and then a figure of 8 million must have been suggested at some point but i don't remember

00:10:10 remember where so i put i put current budget but it's very much an estimated budget yes yes we'll come we'll come back to that because there's a bit more to fill in the blanks on that but but

00:10:21 to fill in the blanks on that but but certainly you you i i just want you to note that at this point you're noting the current budget is at 8 million and the delta if you like between that and lebanese is 4 million yes so then let's move on in the in the year

00:10:33 so then let's move on in the in the year to march 2013. can we go please to tm01.003870 this is the minute of the tmo program board meeting on the 25th of march

00:10:45 board meeting on the 25th of march 2013 now self-evidently you are not present

00:10:50 present robert black and sasha jevons are and you can see under the second item there peter madison attended for grenfell tower

00:11:02 grenfell tower as well as paul duncan and david gibson now um if you look a little bit further down um you can you can see that in the next

00:11:15 you can you can see that in the next paragraph it says for the past two months peter and the team have been working with lead bitters and apple yards to agree on costs for the project our budgeted cost is nine million while the costs being presented by lead bitters is approximately 12 to 13

00:11:27 bitters is approximately 12 to 13 the design is also being revisited as there might be cost savings with revising it

00:11:35 and then on page two if you look at that please

00:11:40 you can see that at the top of the page it says it needs to be considered that if we have no option but to reprocure how rbkc will feel about us looking at this piece of work all over again

00:11:50 again also what will be the view if we take out the relocation of the boxing club and nursery and then if you go down to the fifth paragraph it says procurement would be an issue as the board was sold the project on the

00:12:03 as the board was sold the project on the basis that we were doing it this way for efficiency savings peter has spoken to laura johnson about the present situation and also mentioned it to the board so hopefully there will not be a huge issue

00:12:15 hopefully there will not be a huge issue if we say we need to start again paul is looking with the architects to look at alternatives did you in fact speak to peter madison about this situation um i'm absolutely sure that if peter has

00:12:27 um i'm absolutely sure that if peter has said that then he did then that conversation took place right do you remember whether it was by telephone or in a face-to-face meeting um i do remember peter uh being in my

00:12:38 um i do remember peter uh being in my office around the beginning of 2013 and having a conversation with me about uh costs and the options for reprocuring the project and i distinctly remember saying well if we have to reprocure then

00:12:50 reprocure then you know the tmo needs to reprocure you know it wasn't uh i didn't i didn't express an opinion that would be that said this wasn't something that the rbkc would agree to right and at that

00:13:01 rbkc would agree to right and at that stage did you tell him and then he did you tell him something along the lines of and in any case led butters wouldn't be surprises i've already told them i'm just going to tell the tmo not to engage you for grenfell i don't remember saying that no

00:13:12 grenfell i don't remember saying that no as we've established that was a negotiating tactic rather than actually something that indeed i definitely said i was going to do might have turned the tactic into reality though wouldn't you um i didn't um there's no record we've seen of that

00:13:24 um there's no record we've seen of that conversation um why is that do you remember what between myself and peter madison um if it if it is the conversation i recall it was just

00:13:35 it was just uh peter madison was in my office to talk about something and it came up you know it wasn't a formally minuted meeting

00:13:44 wasn't this an important decision um it's not a decision at this stage and it's just a general conversation he had with me about the costs right i mean given that lbkc is the

00:13:55 right i mean given that lbkc is the client and tmo is the um whatever you call the tmo uh the person providing the rbkc with the services was it not

00:14:06 the rbkc with the services was it not important

00:14:06 important to ensure that to avoid lacks clienting this conversation was recorded well as you can appreciate in any organization there's a number of conversations that take place between colleagues

00:14:17 take place between colleagues and not every one of them is minuted was mr madison your colleague well he was a colleague he was a colleague and he worked for the tmo so not within your organization not in my organization no but as in somebody who i

00:14:28 organization no but as in somebody who i uh was a fellow housing professional who i dealt with on a regular basis so if it wasn't in a formal meeting and it was just a general chat which it may well have been at this

00:14:39 which it may well have been at this stage then it wouldn't have been something that would have been formally minuted because he was maybe at this point just sounding me out hmm

00:14:49 does the closeness of the relationship professional relationship between you and mr madison explain why there's no record of this conversation no

00:15:00 why would peter madison have needed to procur to discuss reprocurement with you um because he would have understood i presume

00:15:09 presume on the basis of which the reasons why the tmo

00:15:13 the tmo we're discussing the procurement of the contract with ledbetters because the links to the calc project

00:15:38 why would peter madison who had nothing to do with the cult project have been concerned with what rbk's position was on that because as we've discussed the

00:15:51 because as we've discussed the rbkc had been looking to achieve efficiencies across the two large projects taking place at the same time and so peter madison probably as a matter of courtesy would have said to me

00:16:03 matter of courtesy would have said to me i don't think this is working right so was it your impression at the time that peter madison wanted to discuss reprocurement with you because he understood that it was in rbkc's interest to have

00:16:14 that it was in rbkc's interest to have ledbetter working on both projects for cost reasons among others and that reprocuring would spoil that um i can't speak for peter madison and what

00:16:26 i can't speak for peter madison and what i'm trying to do is recollect a conversation that took place eight years ago which was an informal conversation between two people discussing how negotiations were progressing

00:16:37 were progressing on the negotiations between kctmo and ledbetters and i believe from my recollection although it's not crystal clear that peter madison just let me know that the comments that they

00:16:49 the comments that they negotiations with ledbesser weren't progressing as well as he has hoped um and that they may have to go out and reprocure the project again did you recommend to him that the

00:17:01 did you recommend to him that the project be reprocured no did peter madison seek to persuade you that the project should be reprocured um i don't think he sought to persuade me i don't think i required persuading i think he was advising me as

00:17:13 persuading i think he was advising me as a

00:17:14 a uh as a professional that this was in his opinion what needed to take place

00:17:22 now can we please go down to the last paragraph

00:17:25 paragraph on that page yes page two and it says this peter and the team will look at the redesign opportunities to get a sense check and the go and then go back to our bkc with a proposal for how to proceed

00:17:37 with a proposal for how to proceed it needs to be thoroughly explained that led bitters are trying to overcharge why would and i know this is not your note and you weren't there but but can you explain why uh the tmo would have had to have or

00:17:49 why uh the tmo would have had to have or felt that they would have had to go back to

00:17:51 to rbkc with a proposal for how to proceed um i can't answer on a proposal for how to proceed but obviously abby casey had taken a

00:18:02 but obviously abby casey had taken a report to cabinet about the use of elm park gardens receipts and the budget for the refurbishment and we had explained to members that there would be a number of additional benefits above and beyond

00:18:14 benefits above and beyond the residential element that would be delivered from this project as i said the wider benefits the community were really important to the councillors um in order for um

00:18:25 um in order for um uh you know sort of for the the people in the locality in order to be able to take their children to a much better nursery than the one who was there and the boxing club to get much better facilities so uh i believe mr madison would want to

00:18:37 so uh i believe mr madison would want to come back to us and talk to us about how the proposals and the redesign opportunities might not just impact on the residential component but also the wider benefits

00:18:48 component but also the wider benefits being delivered through this refurbishment program right now that that's a long answer focusing on redesign opportunities

00:18:58 are you saying that it was your understanding at the time that the tmo in any re-procurement would always need to go back to you because they were because of the potential for redesign which would affect the more

00:19:09 which would affect the more the wider scheme um no i don't i don't uh i don't think they would need to come back to us on redesign in that level of detail but if there was significant budget variances as

00:19:21 variances as uh no doubt the inquiry has seen then we would need to go back to cabinet to get those

00:19:25 those uh you know if we required further money for the project then we would need to go back to cabinet to ask that and if we needed to go back to cabinet to ask for additional resources then we would need to put together a

00:19:36 then we would need to put together a paper that explained why that was the case

00:19:38 case yes and that takes one back to costs my question let's just try once more why do

00:19:47 do can you explain why um the tmo felt that it was necessary to go back to our bkc with a proposal for how to proceed

00:19:57 not in this instance no right

00:20:00 it is the reality that it was you who who was the person who was going to make the ultimate decision on whether the project would be reprocured or not no and that your reaction to whether it

00:20:11 and that your reaction to whether it would to to whatever proposal they came back with

00:20:14 back with would be dominant in that process no or extremely influential in that process um it would possibly be influential but it wouldn't be dominant and i would not direct it

00:20:23 direct it now um you wouldn't direct it right can we then move on to may 2013. let's look at art 408858

00:20:35 let's look at art 408858 this is an internal artelia email you will not have seen it at the time you may have seen it since um it's on the 21st of may 2013

00:20:47 um it's on the 21st of may 2013 and it's sent by rob powell of artelia to phil booth copy to simon cash all artelia

00:20:54 artelia and it starts phillip interesting meeting this am basically peter madison has been overruled by laura johnson she wants to keep the works for the boxing club and nursery and doesn't want to progress the

00:21:05 nursery and doesn't want to progress the kitchens and bathrooms at this stage necessarily also pm not keen on progressing with lead bitter our report kicking all this off was based upon the objective of preserving program this not now not so

00:21:18 preserving program this not now not so important value for money is accordingly we are likely to reprocure scheme via ojeu etc do you remember speaking to peter madison about the grenfell

00:21:30 madison about the grenfell project in may 2013. no do you remember speaking to peter madison about the issues of the boxing club nursery kitchens and bathrooms not specifically no but clearly i did

00:21:42 not specifically no but clearly i did my next question you don't deny having this conversation no i don't do you deny having this conversation with mr madison in terms recorded here um which are admittedly second hand um i i think the language is strong that

00:21:54 um i i think the language is strong that peter madison has been overruled by laura johnson because that's definitely not how i operate it would have been one of having a discussion but mr madison may well based on this

00:22:06 well based on this email have asked me about what the priorities for the project were and i would have explained to mr madison that the wider benefits for the community were really important to the

00:22:17 community were really important to the council

00:22:18 council uh from the funding from elm park gardens so in this instance we wanted to keep the boxing club and the nursery the email also noted as i've shown you that pm not keen on progressing with lead bitter

00:22:29 lead bitter did you speak to peter madison about this time so around the 21st of may 2013 about progressing or not progressing with ledbitter i don't remember specifically i may or

00:22:40 i don't remember specifically i may or may not have done did you express a view on that subject at about this time again i don't remember did you in any attempt in any way attempt to influence peter madison on the question of retaining or not retaining lead bitter

00:22:51 retaining or not retaining lead bitter at about this time i don't remember did you have the power to overrule peter madison when it came to the grenfell tower project um i didn't have the power to overrule miss peter madison but um

00:23:03 miss peter madison but um i would have been uh here talking about the budget for the project and what the cabinet had agreed to and advised him of what rbkc's preferences were right so

00:23:16 right so in de facto terms you would have had the ability to exercise influence yes i would

00:23:27 did you overrule peter madison on the issue of the boxing club and nursery um i would have said to peter madison based on the basis of this email that um the borough's preference

00:23:38 email that um the borough's preference was

00:23:39 was in terms of the wider community community benefit and the way the funding was being delivered through the empire gardens receipt was to keep the boxing club in the nursery rather than the kitchens and bathrooms

00:23:49 bathrooms i don't specifically remember the conversation but i have no reason to dispute what's in this email did you overrule peter madison on the issue of re-procurement

00:24:00 issue of re-procurement no but did you tell peter madison that value of for money was more important than preserving the program of works no now we heard from simon cash about

00:24:11 no now we heard from simon cash about this email he was one of the recipients i'd just like to show you what he said this is the transcript of his evidence on day 48 please

00:24:22 on day 48 please page 163

00:24:30 uh and i should caveat what i'm about to ask you by making it clear that this is his understanding of the same document uh so let's see how we go at line 24 uh it is i put to him peter madison has

00:24:44 uh it is i put to him peter madison has been overruled by laura johnson question when robert powell used the words overruled and then if you turn the page please uh what did you understand he meant

00:24:56 uh what did you understand he meant answer that laura i believe that peter madison reported to laura as head of social housing within rbkc and that she had effectively told him that what she wanted would basically take precedence over what peter madison

00:25:07 take precedence over what peter madison was trying to achieve and as i suppose the major funder for the project contributor of funds to the project

00:25:12 project he obviously had to take cognizance of what she was saying questioned right so as you understood as it sounds from what you have just told us that rb casey had some sort of decisive influence about whether or not this contract would

00:25:24 about whether or not this contract would be reprocured is that right it appears so yes

00:25:27 so yes it appears so but did it appear so to you at the time yes really did you ask yourself or ask cmo how about that it could be no because at the end of the day

00:25:38 because at the end of the day that's a relationship above our client now do you agree with uh mr cash's impression that what you wanted on the project would take

00:25:49 wanted on the project would take precedence over what peter madison was trying to achieve um at least in the respects we've seen in this email um i would uh agree with some of mr cash's evidence that

00:26:00 some of mr cash's evidence that um it was very clear what rbkc wanted to achieve out of this project but i'm not clear from this evidence about how that differs um to what peter madison was trying to achieve

00:26:12 it was the position that because rbkc was funding the refurbishment it should have uh an influence over the scope of the project yes

00:26:23 project yes yes well it went a bit further than that didn't it because this is a building owned by rbkc yes it is

00:26:31 is and um although rbkc was quite content for the tmo to run the project there must be a point at which the council would want to determine what

00:26:43 the council would want to determine what the project was the council was very clear about the wider community of benefits it wanted to achieve so it wanted to see the nursery in the boxing club and the new play area

00:26:54 new play area in terms of what could be achieved in terms of

00:26:57 terms of in terms of the refurbishment of the tower then we took advice from the tmo based on the keystone asset management database

00:27:04 database about what needed to be refurbished within the tower and with all projects there is a you know

00:27:10 know there's a trade-off about what you can uh what about what you can achieve and so um if the budget was currently sitting around eight nine million pounds and mr madison spoke to me and said we

00:27:22 and mr madison spoke to me and said we can't help we can't have kitchens bathrooms

00:27:24 bathrooms and boiler windows nursery boxing club what's the priority for the borough then my response to him was well the priority for the borough is to keep those wider community benefits

00:27:35 keep those wider community benefits uh as well as do perhaps not all of the refuge works the tower but as much as we possibly can thank you and against that background uh was that to your way of looking at it

00:27:48 uh was that to your way of looking at it at the time um instrumental in convincing the tmo to retain

00:27:54 retain the calc pre-construction project team no

00:28:00 was it instrumental in defining the scope of the project clearly yes yes

00:28:14 um did you do you remember uh in this context

00:28:21 context uh well sorry not in this context but at around this time um the tmo um having any concerns uh about um

00:28:34 uh about um claire williams i don't remember the team about having concerns about claire williams

00:28:40 williams right let me come let me come back to that because and chronologically it may be slightly out of place but it links to this particular issue um can then turn to the budget itself uh uh we we looked

00:28:53 to the budget itself uh uh we we looked earlier on some figures we looked at the 5.5 figure and we looked at the 8 million figure uh can we again go back please to your report you produced for cabinet on the second

00:29:02 second cabinet on the second of may 2012 at tmo double zero eight four seven three three one let's have that on the screen

00:29:15 and also at the same time because this is probably the best way of doing this can we have your first witness statement at page 14 paragraph 57

00:29:31 [Applause]

00:29:36 now you say in paragraph 57 just wait for it to come up on the screen your first witness statement page 14 power 57

00:30:11 thank you you say that the cabinet approved the recommendation for the grenfell tower refurbishment project with a budget of six million pounds this decision released the funding needed by the tmo to take the project forward

00:30:23 the tmo to take the project forward thereafter the tma proceeded to manage the project including tendering appointment straight management of contractors resident liaison budget management and project project specification um just focusing on the eight on the six

00:30:34 just focusing on the eight on the six million for the moment how is that figure calculated um so that 6 million

00:30:41 6 million figure goes back to the the estimated figure that hunters had provided to

00:30:48 previously about the estimated cost for undertaking the refurbishment project i see so is it just rounded up to six yes basically and what did the difference between the hunters 5.5 million

00:30:59 million figure and the 6 million figure represent

00:31:02 represent i didn't represent anything it was just a rounding up of that of a figure it wasn't including uh any particular items and is it fair to say that the budget at that stage was primarily based on the availability of

00:31:14 primarily based on the availability of funds from the sale of the um park gardens basements yes the decision was taken by i took a report to cabinet to say that there were a number of blocks within the uh the council's portfolio as

00:31:26 within the uh the council's portfolio as managed by kctmo that needed considerable investment and uh

00:31:32 uh and uh the empire gardens receipt provided a unique opportunity in order to provide that level of capital funding right but that was that that that receipt was net eight million wasn't it as we've seen

00:31:43 wasn't it as we've seen yes it had gone up yes yeah the elm park gardens basements were sold in tranches so it didn't all come through in one yeah i mean given that you've had with a figure the calculation we've seen which i think we see from the

00:31:55 which i think we see from the from the uh report that you provide on the 2nd of may we can look at it if you like um gave you a headroom of over 2 million above the 6 million which was itself

00:32:06 above the 6 million which was itself rounded up from 5.5 my question is why did you not go further than the hunters very outlined 5.5 million and asked for a detailed costing um because i didn't think it was

00:32:21 costing um because i didn't think it was uh available at that time but you had eight point you had just over eight million available or projected to be available at that time given that and given the 5.5 million which was very

00:32:32 and given the 5.5 million which was very much an outline figure why not go why not go to a reputable qs and say well can i please have a costed budget please rather than a basically a back of the envelope figure rounded up

00:32:43 back of the envelope figure rounded up by

00:32:44 by half a million pounds because there was a process being undertaken to have a look at um the costs of the grenfell tower refurbishment project and there was an outline figure of that

00:32:55 and there was an outline figure of that amount of money i expected the tmo to work through those in a greater level of detail um and as we've seen from previous submissions uh they were coming back at you know sort of 12 million pounds

00:33:07 of 12 million pounds and then through the procurement exercise it would uh bring to the fore exactly how much the project was actually going to cost yeah but this is now may this is may 2012. so the reprocurement exercise wasn't

00:33:18 so the reprocurement exercise wasn't until until later on at this point so may 2012 did any member of the cabinet question the proposed budget of six million i don't remember if they did so nobody said it's far too high and

00:33:30 so nobody said it's far too high and nobody said it's far too low um if they did make that statement then it would have been in the minutes of the cabinet

00:33:35 cabinet yes right did cabinet effectively i don't like to use the word rubber stamp um but accept the number that you'd suggested in your report uh the cabinet would have accepted that the uh the estimated amount that we had

00:33:47 the uh the estimated amount that we had presented to them yes and but nobody actually scrutinized how it was wrong did you anticipate in early may 2012 that your six million odd figure well

00:33:58 that your six million odd figure well it's not odd your six million found figure would need to be increased at some point um clearly i would have done because based on the notes that i've presented before

00:34:08 before that i was already having an indication um

00:34:11 um from uh from the work that was being undertaken that that budget wasn't sufficient right

00:34:19 it indeed and do you remember that those discussions were being had with among others mark anderson um yes they would have been yes so do you remember a discussion at about this time that the

00:34:31 a discussion at about this time that the balance of the budget would need to come from the capital programme funds beyond the sale of elm park gardens um i don't remember when exactly that discussion took place but i do know that was the decision that ultimately took place

00:34:42 ultimately took place yes and my question really is do you remember

00:34:46 remember contemplating at this time may 2012 that in fact six million wasn't going to be enough and that the balance of the budget would need to come from the capital program i do not remember contemplating that at that specific time right

00:34:58 that specific time right do you remember when you first contemplated that no um let's move on through 2012 uh again um art406284

00:35:09 uh again um art406284 this is the project brief prepared by apple yards in august of that year

00:35:19 and the projects the client is the tmo the project sponsor is mark anderson

00:35:26 anderson and the project title as you can see is grenfell tower and there's a description of it

00:35:30 of it and if you get uh if you go a little bit lower down page one please under the words budget if we can scroll down please you can see it says this

00:35:38 this the refurbishment has secured funding of six million pounds including all fees etc from rbkc for carrying out the refurbishment but we've been advised by the client that it should be

00:35:47 should be that should it be necessary as per recent budget cost appraisals a further 2 million pounds can be sourced from capital expenses did you have discussions with mark anderson about sourcing a further two

00:35:59 anderson about sourcing a further two million pounds from capital expenses around or before august 2012. i may have done but i don't remember if a further two million pounds was required from capital expenses as

00:36:10 required from capital expenses as indicated by this project brief then that would have had to have come from rbkc wouldn't it that's correct if tmo required any further increase in its budget then they would have to speak to you

00:36:21 then they would have to speak to you about it wouldn't they that's correct yeah

00:36:24 yeah and indeed they did that yes they did yes

00:36:28 and is this right that the process would be first that you would write a report for cabinet and recommend a budget increase

00:36:35 increase um i would write i would write a um or a member of my team would write a report um

00:36:42 um in conjunction with steve miller who was the head of housing finance at the time um and still is to look and then it would go to a housing digest we would talk about it to the cabinet

00:36:53 we would talk about it to the cabinet member

00:36:54 member and then it would go to cabinet yes and cabinet would would then approve the funding if they agreed with it if they agreed with it is the critical question

00:37:04 question did they always agree with it or did they sometimes disagree with it um i'm sure cabinet uh disagreed with lots of reports that officers brought forward for them and they didn't always agree with the recommendations that came forward

00:37:16 recommendations that came forward that may be but in your experience did cabinet ever disagree with a budget increase that you asked for no

00:37:23 for no no

00:37:27 so in practical terms you effectively had the power in practical terms to set the budget for the project no i disagree with that i would say that i

00:37:39 disagree with that i would say that i had the power to recommend a cabinet and it was up to them to make the decision indeed but given your experience that they never said no in

00:37:48 in practical terms which is how i put the question yeah i understand you you you effectively had the hell the purse strings if i can put it that way um i although the cabinet had never said

00:38:00 um i although the cabinet had never said no

00:38:01 no um i would say that the cabinet had a very keen understanding of finance and i couldn't necessarily be guaranteed that they wouldn't they would always say yes no i'm not suggesting that now the picture i'm getting is that uh

00:38:14 picture i'm getting is that uh cabinet respected your judgment and if you put up a sensible report they were likely to accept it that's correct you couldn't be absolutely certain that they would no i wouldn't and i had respect for their decisions

00:38:26 and i had respect for their decisions yeah and if you put up something that was rather too extreme you might have been

00:38:30 been knocked back i would have been

00:38:36 yes now then let's look at

00:38:41 art406233 please

00:38:53 this is an email of the 12th of september uh i'm so sorry i need you to look i need you to look at page two

00:39:05 yes it's an email of the 12th of september 2012 from trichon lim of artelia to mark anderson of the tmo copied to a number of people on the

00:39:17 copied to a number of people on the project

00:39:17 project grenfell tower project including bruce zones

00:39:22 zones and attached to it is a budget cost estimate number three rev one as you can see from the first paragraph

00:39:34 paragraph now i obviously you weren't uh copied into this email but you can see that she says in the second line you will note that the total construction cost

00:39:42 cost is now estimated at 9.28 million pounds which is over the current budget

00:39:49 now following the initial um approval of the nine of the six million budget in may 2012 were you kept informed as matters went along by the tmo uh whether it was mark anderson

00:40:01 anderson or uh later peter madison uh of discussions with apple yards relating to the budget for this project um i don't remember being updated at

00:40:12 um i don't remember being updated at this particular time i do remember being updated uh later when peter madison had attended the project and had the sums back but at this particular point i don't remember that

00:40:23 don't remember that do you recall being told in september 2012

00:40:27 2012 that the total construction cost had risen uh

00:40:30 risen uh now to 9.28 million pounds i don't remember that conversation but it may well have taken place okay now when he was asked about this email uh mr

00:40:41 he was asked about this email uh mr anderson told us in his evidence that within the tmo the project budget was always known as being nine and a half million pounds just for reference purposes that's day 52 page 145

00:40:52 52 page 145 line 20 to 21. we don't need to go to it was that something known within our bkc uh no i don't believe it was so can we take it that you on that answer

00:41:04 take it that you on that answer had not been proceeding on the basis that the budget for this project was nine and a half million pounds um i don't believe i was at that particular time right so you were still is this right working on the basis that it was six million i

00:41:15 on the basis that it was six million i was working on the basis of estimates that had been given up to that point yes i see

00:41:24 did you at this stage i think the answer must be no but did do i take it from that you didn't at this stage start addressing your mind to how the difference between six and nine and a half was to be funded

00:41:35 and a half was to be funded yeah right now let's men move forward to the end of 2012. do you remember discussing apple yards is stage d cost plan for grenfell with mark

00:41:46 cost plan for grenfell with mark anderson

00:41:46 anderson in december 2012. uh i may have done but i don't remember let's look at the document um tma12001898 please page 74.

00:42:05 um this is uh part of mr anderson's report to the tmo board of the 8th of january 2013.

00:42:16 tmo board of the 8th of january 2013. and here you can see that under the heading project budget stroke program under paragraph uh 6.2 you can see the total project budget derived from the stage d cost

00:42:27 budget derived from the stage d cost plan for the combined works is 9.768 million pounds broken down as he says and you can see how the breakdown is

00:42:34 is and there's a total construction cost there of 8.415 million pounds

00:42:42 and the overall project cost including fees at 9.768 million pounds so you've got construction costs and then the professional fees cost on top now mr anderson was asked about this

00:42:54 now mr anderson was asked about this document in his evidence and i just want to show you what he says about that before asking some questions about it can we please go to the transcript for day 52 at page 151 [Applause]

00:43:06 [Applause] it's a short section of his evidence page 151

00:43:11 page 151 and at line one it says it's a question now was that then put forward to rbkc mr anderson it was put forward to our

00:43:22 mr anderson it was put forward to our bkc prior to this board report being considered so in december 2012 there was a conversation with rbkc about the projected costs arising out of the stage d

00:43:31 d cost plan assessment stage d sorry the stage d cost plan assessment by apple yards

00:43:37 yards and there was a subsequent conversation on the back of that with rbkc which was both laura johnson and their finance team questions so would it be right to say that there were concerns if not

00:43:48 that there were concerns if not pressures about budget coming from both tmo and rbkc because of those stage d costs yes there were concerns but in terms of the funding certainly from the discussions i'd had and my knowledge of them was that it was

00:43:59 and my knowledge of them was that it was funding that could be managed

00:44:04 because and then the question because of these discussions were you obliged to have any discussion with professionals contractors consultants about their costs not at this stage no my recollection from those discussions in december

00:44:16 from those discussions in december was that rbkc's perspective on on it was that as long as we kept it below 10 million pounds they were comfortable now um i've shown you that my questions are as follows

00:44:29 are as follows given that the budget that was formally approved

00:44:32 approved uh had been formally approved in may of that year and remains so was six million pounds um do you remember being told and perhaps surprised

00:44:44 surprised in the december of that year that there was now a revised figure of 9.7 million um i don't remember the conversation but i have no reason to dispute what mr anderson said thank you

00:44:57 why did you have these discussions with him

00:45:00 him if you're not just you're not disputing what he says if he's right about that can you tell us what the rationale for having those discussions was um well i think that would be self-evident in that that we uh

00:45:11 self-evident in that that we uh rbkc were the uh with the funder of the project and so if one needed to increase the budget for the project then you would need to talk to rbkc and you remember telling him that as long as he kept within 10 berlin

00:45:23 long as he kept within 10 berlin everything was going to be i don't remember saying that but i have as i say i have no reason to dispute what mr anderson has said right the 10 million figure is a very round number do you know where it came from

00:45:36 and we know and you may remember this in general terms that the budget was increased formally in july 2013. yes yes let's look at your lj9 rbk3013783

00:45:56 this is your report i say your report you signed it and presented it uh to the the um to the leaders group and to cabinet

00:46:08 and to cabinet uh in july 2013 and you can see what's for information in the box

00:46:18 uh if we go to page six we can see that grenfell tower arises there

00:46:26 and you can see the heading grenfell tower just above paragraph 3.14 and it says the three-year housing capital program 2013 to 14 to 2015 to 16 included the scheme to

00:46:38 to 2015 to 16 included the scheme to refurbish grenfell tower the total budget provision over the three-year period is 5.6 million pounds this is in addition to the 400 000

00:46:46 000 pounds that was incurred last year this is being funded from the capital receipts arising from the sale of basements at elm park gardens

00:46:55 and then you go on at 315 in order to achieve efficiencies and minimize disruption to residents it is planned to undertake additional works at grenfell tower as part of the same project the estimated cost of the overall scheme

00:47:06 the estimated cost of the overall scheme is approximately 9.7 million pounds although won't be confirmed until the tendering process is completed later in the year

00:47:16 how were those figures for the budget increased calculated do you remember uh no you'd need to talk to mr meller who was the head of finance at bkc at the time this is your report

00:47:27 bkc at the time this is your report yes it is he offered it um i read it but i can't tell you um off the top of my head to be honest with you um how those figures were arrived up right you didn't ask him no i would have

00:47:38 right you didn't ask him no i would have asked him at the time i just don't recollect

00:47:39 recollect i see so you would have scrutinized the reason for the increase yes you just can't remember now no right

00:47:50 did this increase in the budget to 9.7 million pounds mean that the total funds allocated to the grenfell tower refurbishment um now substantially exceeded the proceeds net proceeds of the sale

00:48:02 proceeds net proceeds of the sale of the elm park gardens basements yes and

00:48:06 and that being the case how did you propose that that additional or that shortfall will be funded um it would come from working balance it would come from the

00:48:17 working balance it would come from the main hra program that's the hra account and the working balance

00:48:23 balance i'm not sure that's an expression i've come across in your evidence so far what is is that just another word for the hra yes right and what funds the hra tenants rent senate's rents

00:48:39 uh do you know whether mr meller scrutinized the figures provided by the tmo

00:48:46 tmo i don't suspect he did know so he took those on trust yes he did

00:48:53 why why was why was that uh because mr muller is not a um is a uh is an accountant for the uh for the housing revenue account he's not someone who has the uh

00:49:05 someone who has the uh experience of someone like ortelia who would be able to be advised on their cost plan do you know

00:49:13 know whether mr mello interrogated the reasons for the increase by reference to specific numbers either by asking artelia or the tmo um he wouldn't have asked artelio but he

00:49:24 um he wouldn't have asked artelio but he may well have asked the tmo

00:49:28 did you ask him that question did you say

00:49:31 say steve have you gone into these details can you tell me that or assure me that there are good reasons for this increase of 35 um i'm fairly sure i didn't say that

00:49:43 35 um i'm fairly sure i didn't say that to mr mueller because mr mello would have been in receipt of the cost plan from the tmo and would have accepted the figures from the tmo and the figures from the tmo were based on

00:49:54 were based on the the cost plans that they had drawn up

00:49:57 up uh by a professional cost estimator right it sounds as if the picture that you you've given just now is that artelia produced the numbers the givens of the tmo the tma could give them to mr

00:50:08 of the tmo the tma could give them to mr mellow mr melo gives them to you and you give them the cabinet and no one scrutinizes them on the way uh i think we uh i don't think that's entirely fair um i would say that neither myself or mr

00:50:19 um i would say that neither myself or mr meller or uh uh cost estimators for uh for qs firms so

00:50:24 so we are both familiar working with housing for many many years and would have spoken to the tmo about how those figures were arrived at and what the particular money was going

00:50:36 and what the particular money was going to be spent on and would have asked mr madison um [Music]

00:50:42 [Music] at the time as to how those figures were arrived at and then we would have taken on trust

00:50:47 on trust that um artelia had arrived at a cost plan that was based on actuals did it not occur to you uh well let me ask you differently were you not concerned that the original budget figure of 6

00:50:58 that the original budget figure of 6 million which was itself a rounded up number

00:51:01 number was so dramatically an underestimate when you'd asked for approval the previous year um no because uh cost estimates on building projects uh in my experience

00:51:13 in my experience um often at this at the start of the project

00:51:16 project vary with some great degree to what they actually turn out to be and what hunters were asked to do at the outset was a very very basic description of what they thought

00:51:27 basic description of what they thought the cost would be for the refurbishment of grenfell tower and as a project progresses in some considerable detail about what you can actually

00:51:35 actually what you actually want as the project then there was bound to be a considerable cost variance

00:51:42 but i i think your evidence so far is that although you noted the difference between 6 million and 9.7 million you weren't shocked about it surprised about

00:51:53 weren't shocked about it surprised about it and didn't ask yourself didn't ask for the reasons for it oh no i would have asked the reasons for it but i wouldn't i wasn't shocked right you know because i've worked on many project development projects and seen cost variances of this type before

00:52:04 seen cost variances of this type before what what were the reasons you were given

00:52:07 given um that the original cost estimates were just that they were very basic cost estimates for windows for heating systems and for overcladding of the building and actually when you started to go into detail

00:52:18 detail about what was required on the project and really breaking down the cost properly

00:52:22 properly that then it built up to a significantly different figure was there any particular element that you discovered had been so dramatically underestimated back in may 2012 no i don't remember there being a any particular item that was so drastically

00:52:34 particular item that was so drastically different

00:52:35 different do you remember going back to the tmo and asking them to account for how the budget could have been so dramatically underestimated i don't remember asking them that specific question but i would have had a conversation

00:52:46 conversation with uh with them about why was there a cost difference between it and and i would have understood but based on my experience of working in housing for many years that the original budget figure was just

00:52:57 that the original budget figure was just that it was just an estimate was there any question posed to you by cabinets such

00:53:08 posed to you by cabinets such that i've just posed to you about the reasons for the increase if there was a question posted by my cabinet it'll be in the minutes of the cabinet meeting right

00:53:17 now let's move forward a year uh two um nine months at least to march 2014.

00:53:26 2014. can we please go to rbk403538 this is a a minute of a housing and regeneration policy board meeting on the 20th of march 2014

00:53:39 20th of march 2014 attended by a council of fielding mellon and councillor husband with you present as an officer you see that yes now

00:53:53 if you go to page two and i should just place this into chronological context 20th of march 2014 is uh two days after the tmo had

00:54:06 uh two days after the tmo had told ryden that they had uh won the tender

00:54:11 tender so this is the this is the result of the repeat at the time of the re-procurement uh if you go to page two you can see there's an item grenfell

00:54:22 you can see there's an item grenfell tower and it says this ms johnson reported that a report was going to the tmo informing them of the successful contractor for grenfell she agreed to send a copy to councillor fielding mellon officers will need to do some value

00:54:34 officers will need to do some value engineering as the bid has come in at half a million pounds higher than the budget

00:54:39 budget councilor blakeman was part of the interview panel the report will be going to cabinet in june uh who had written the report

00:54:52 who had written the report or would write the report that was going to the tmo

00:55:06 to the tmo i think this must be an error in the minutes to be honest with you um

00:55:14 they are draft minutes yeah because i i don't understand the context of that first sentence as in a report that reported that a report was going to the tmo informing them of a successful contractor for grenfell

00:55:28 i think this first sentence is an error because it doesn't really seem to make sense

00:55:33 sense i think it actually it would it would seem to me that i would be reporting um that the report was coming to rbkc of a successful contractor for grenfell

00:55:45 of a successful contractor for grenfell and that

00:55:46 and that that i would send a copy to council fielding melon so i think there's an error there well that's that's certainly what makes sense yeah but my question is that's not what's said so can you enlighten us do you think that's an error do you i do

00:55:58 think that's an error do you i do uh and would the error to be precise be that instead of tmo it should say cabinet or rbkc yes i would i would say so based on what i can see in front of who

00:56:09 i can see in front of who who should it have been within rbkc who would have been told of the successful contractor for grenfell um i believe the tmo would have informed me and or

00:56:20 and or um the housing commissioning manager and or

00:56:24 or the manager for regeneration and development that this process had been gone through and that a successful contractor had been found well that's an odd thing to say then isn't it because then you'll be saying miss johnson reported the report was

00:56:35 miss johnson reported the report was coming to herself i know it's i just why i think that first sentence is entirely an error so um i would be miss johnson reported that a report uh was cut was coming from the tmo

00:56:46 tmo um either that a successful contractor had been uh achieved for grenfell or that

00:56:52 that i would say that a report was going to go to cabinet about the successful contractor for grenfell but i i inexplicably i can't really just understand what that sentence means right to be absolutely are you

00:57:04 right to be absolutely are you absolutely sure that the the the rbkc was not telling the tmo who the successful contractor was

00:57:11 was absolutely 100 now then it notes as i've shown you that um officers will need to do or need to do some value engineering as the bid has come in at 500

00:57:22 come in at 500 000 pounds higher than the budget who are the officers there that would have been officers from the tmo

00:57:30 were you yourself suggesting that value engineering would be required or were you merely passing on to the housing and regeneration policy board what you yourself had been told that value engineering was required i

00:57:41 that value engineering was required i was passing on right who had told you that value engineering was required um i suspect it was peter madison right do you recall it no no no um did you suggest at this

00:57:52 no no no um did you suggest at this meeting that i further increase in the budget might be required in order to cover the costs anticipated by ryden's successful bid um it's not minuted that i said that um and i don't remember the meeting exactly

00:58:04 and i don't remember the meeting exactly so

00:58:04 so um i can't give you an accurate answer to that right did anybody else or right i mean did anybody at the meeting

00:58:11 meeting including perhaps councillor rot fielding mellon suggest that a further increase to the budget might be required he may well have done but i can't remember he can't recall

00:58:22 remember he can't recall do you remember having any thoughts about

00:58:26 about which part of the project might yield any potential savings by way of half a million pounds or more i had no view whatsoever

00:58:38 had you seen a breakdown of the project costs

00:58:41 costs apart from the stage d cost plan i don't believe i had apart from this yeah you hadn't you hadn't you don't think you did

00:58:47 did and i wasn't part of the interview panel for the i wasn't part of the procurement process

00:58:51 process i didn't see the returned bids and i wasn't part of the value engineering exercise right do you remember whether after the meeting uh you told the tmo that value engineering

00:59:02 you told the tmo that value engineering was required no did you ever suggest to the tmo that more money would or perhaps could be made available for the project if value engineering proved impossible

00:59:16 if value engineering proved impossible i don't remember having that conversation right did you hint to them that if value engineering didn't work out then more money would be forthcoming um ultimately more money was forthcoming to the project because actually

00:59:27 to the project because actually the project budget was uh 10.3 million in the end um so uh i don't remember hinting that and i don't remember telling them that all i can say for certain is that the

00:59:39 all i can say for certain is that the project budget ended up being um uh 10.3 million because of the addition of a contingency that's correct later on yes but at this stage we're talking about value engineering question again do you remember telling

00:59:52 question again do you remember telling or giving the impression to the tmo that if value engineering didn't work out then they could come back to you for an increase i don't remember being asked if there was an opportunity for

01:00:03 asked if there was an opportunity for more money and i do not remember giving them a hint or a suggestion that there was more money available what about the other way around did you ever give the impression to the tmo that that was it at this stage and that

01:00:15 that that was it at this stage and that any further savings in the project would have to come from value engineering i don't remember having that conversation either no

01:00:23 we you mentioned an increase we both just did

01:00:26 just did in relation to the budget um that in fact then happened uh in the in the june of 2014 didn't it yes

01:00:34 yes and at that date you drafted a report recommending to cabinet a further budget increase from the 9.7 billion to 10 in fact 10.1 million

01:00:43 million yes um can we look at that it's a rbk 50350 please

01:00:52 now the report itself is i think undated uh it's eight pages long if we can go to page 8 we'll see your name at the bottom of it

01:01:04 we'll see your name at the bottom of it it's undated uh

01:01:08 well sorry bottom of page seven there it is um

01:01:11 is um but if we go back to page one we can see that it's um drafted for a cabinet meeting on the 19th of june 2014 and it has draft watermarked through it

01:01:22 through it do you think you uh the drafted or or approved it for that meeting um kitty mortimer's name is at the end of this report so it's very likely that she drafted it

01:01:33 so it's very likely that she drafted it i read it and approved it right now you can see uh on page one that it's for the cabinet meeting on the 19th of june 2014 and in the box for decision it says this report updates cabinet on the

01:01:45 this report updates cabinet on the progress and and the ongoing program for the major

01:01:47 the major improvement works and hidden homes project at grenfell tower it also seeks agreement to increase the capital budget for the scheme to 10.1 million pounds uh if we go please to page five in this document and go

01:01:59 page five in this document and go to paragraph 3.2 we can see why or what the increase was made up of it says here the current anticipated total estimated cost of the scheme is

01:02:10 estimated cost of the scheme is 6.9 odd million pounds inclusive of fees so that's the 9.7 this sum includes prudence assumptions for the items detailed above and there is potential for these costs to be reduced as part of

01:02:22 for these costs to be reduced as part of the ongoing detailed agreement of the scope

01:02:24 scope and design details however there is no contingency in this program at the present time and there is significant risk in a refurbishment project of this nature it is therefore recommended that the budget provision for the scheme has

01:02:35 budget provision for the scheme has increased to 10.1 million pounds enabling a contingency of just over 400 000 pounds to be established

01:02:44 was it the tmos idea to request a budget increase to 10.1 million pounds um the tmo uh peter madison came and had a meeting with myself and councillor

01:02:55 a meeting with myself and councillor field mellon at a housing digest meeting where there was a discussion taken place about the the budget for the project and they alerted us to the fact that there was a there was a need for

01:03:06 there was a there was a need for additional additional funds and i distinctly remember talking to steve miller about it

01:03:12 it and we agreed that there was a need for a contingency on a budget of this uh a project of this size and this complexity and it was sensible when going back to cabinet to build in a contingency summit

01:03:24 cabinet to build in a contingency summit you have a specific recollection of that meeting do you um i reckon i do remember peter madison but bearing in mind it is quite some time ago so peter madison came to policy board on a number of occasions

01:03:34 occasions um um so i i do remember there being uh the tmo peter madison talking to us about the budget for it and us agreeing that we did need to go

01:03:45 and us agreeing that we did need to go back to cabinet and ask for additional funds right have you seen a document which records that meeting no i don't know i'm as i say i may be confronting the number of times mr peter madison came to

01:03:57 of times mr peter madison came to uh came to the uh policy board but i i believe he did from isolation you see not sure that what you've just told us is in your your witness statements so i'm just

01:04:08 your witness statements so i'm just wondering how you recall it um i'm just recalling we had uh housing policy digest every week or every other week

01:04:16 week um and uh we would we would have discussed the uh cabinet report with councillor fielding mellon right okay i wouldn't have taken a report to cabinet

01:04:27 cabinet on an uh i wouldn't have taken any report to cabinet without talking to councillor fielding mellon face but i especially wouldn't have taken a report to a cabinet where i known a subject which was important as this without going through it with some

01:04:38 without going through it with some detail with the cabinet member well indeed and i just wonder why given its importance why your discussion with um with uh our with tmo with peter madison wasn't

01:04:50 our with tmo with peter madison wasn't recorded anywhere it's coming to you and asking you for a budget increase why is that not recorded i can't account for that it's more lacks clienting isn't it i think that's quite harsh because not

01:05:01 i think that's quite harsh because not every conversation is recorded between uh colleagues or people or people who are

01:05:07 are discussing matters um if it was discussed at policy board uh then the minutes of those meetings were generally quite light and just you know kind of detailed action points uh but it may be uh that um

01:05:21 uh but it may be uh that um you know sort of uh it was a conversation that took place where peter madison was in the office or he may have phoned me away of email i don't have an exact detail of it but um i don't think it's fair to say that every single

01:05:33 fair to say that every single meeting that you help you hold with an organization that you talk to on a daily basis

01:05:37 basis is minuted no you it's the second time you've referred to your relationship between yourself and peter madison as one of colleagues the reality is that you are his client that's correct yeah i just wonder whether there's and

01:05:50 yeah i just wonder whether there's and it's the way you saw it though is it you saw him really more of a colleague rather than you being his client well um i'd worked for rbkc by the time i left for eight and a half years and i had worked with the people at the tmo

01:06:02 worked with the people at the tmo who were there for the majority of that time and i'd worked with peta since 2013 so i don't think it's unreasonable although there's a client relationship there that you also view them as fellow

01:06:13 there that you also view them as fellow housing professionals and colleagues which is why i put it to you that it was lacks clienting not to make a note of that meeting um and i can disagree right it's um

01:06:27 i think we could take it nonetheless that it was the tmos incentive or initiative to come to rbkc and ask for the further increase yes it was yes

01:06:40 and then you had previously indicated as we've seen from the 20th of march meeting policy board meeting that value engineering would be required to bring

01:06:52 engineering would be required to bring the project within the existing budget 9.7 million were you therefore concerned only three months later to be told that the tma were now asking for another 400 000 pounds

01:07:04 400 000 pounds um no i understood uh which is in supporting documentation that um that there was uh some reasons why it hadn't been able that value engineering hadn't been able to achieve

01:07:15 engineering hadn't been able to achieve one of which recollection was about the not being able to achieve the funding from

01:07:20 from uh we had assumed funding from energy sources

01:07:23 sources and so i didn't you know obviously i would like it to have achieved the 9.7 million pound budget

01:07:31 budget but i'm also sufficiently experienced in uh in working in this field to know that um

01:07:38 um that sometimes they cannot be achieved were you not concerned to understand why it was that the 400 000 pounds hadn't been lumped in with the march figure and why it was

01:07:49 with the march figure and why it was only now being presented to you well i think as is explained earlier is that they their figures had come out with their 500 thousand pounds over they'd been an exercise that the tmo proposing to undertake to value engineer

01:08:01 proposing to undertake to value engineer it

01:08:01 it to get that figure down the figure had uh there had been some value engineering undertaken which had been successful but it still left the scheme without any contingency and that is not a very good

01:08:12 contingency and that is not a very good place to go to when you're managing a project of this scale and this size um so we agreed uh that we would add that back in

01:08:21 in can we go to rbk 50369 please

01:08:35 this is an email from peter madison to you

01:08:38 you and kitty mortimer the 4th of june 2014. dear all i've received an updated cost plan from ryden today and they're flagging up two areas of risk in the costs containing the cabinet report

01:08:50 costs containing the cabinet report and uh you can see what they are one is the cladding fixing method and the second is energy funding and then he goes on to say i'm really sorry to flag this up so late in the day but i think it would be prudent to add a

01:09:01 but i think it would be prudent to add a further 200 000 pounds to the contingency taking the budget up to 10.3 million pounds

01:09:10 uh did you draft your report to cabinet do you remember before receiving this email from peter madison

01:09:16 madison i'm afraid i don't remember no no we don't appear to have a response to peter madison's email um do you remember how you reacted to his further request for a further

01:09:27 to his further request for a further budget increase over and above the 10.1 to 10.3 i don't remember how i reacted no do you know what happened to that request for an extra 200 000 pounds

01:09:38 request for an extra 200 000 pounds um no i don't actually no you don't remember why you didn't ask for that no okay off there um no i don't you seem surprised yeah i do because i thought the budget was 10.3 million

01:09:51 thought the budget was 10.3 million um it would have been yeah so um now seeing the cabinet draft cabinet report this is 10.1 million um my recollection was clearly incorrect

01:10:02 um my recollection was clearly incorrect and we know that cabinet in due course did approve the increase from 9.7 to 10.1

01:10:07 10.1 as you asked for do you remember whether there was any opposition voiced to the increase in the budget um by anybody councillor fielding mellon or anybody else at the ed cabinet

01:10:18 or anybody else at the ed cabinet um i don't remember there being any opposition but if there was they would be recorded in the cabinet minute

01:10:26 uh now i'm going to ask you uh to get back in time i'm sorry to do this we now go from summer 14

01:10:34 summer 14 to february 2009 when i think you joined rbkc

01:10:38 rbkc as a second d when you arrived at rbkc in the late winter of 2008 nine were you aware that concerns had been raised about the

01:10:50 concerns had been raised about the performance of the tmo in 2008

01:10:55 um so i arrived at rbkc in the february of 2009.

01:11:00 of 2009. um i wasn't aware prior to joining that there was concerns by aubry casey about the tmo's performance but i quite quickly became aware that there were some problems yes now

01:11:12 that there were some problems yes now let's go to document rbk3050373 please

01:11:23 this is a something called a key decision report dated 6th of june 2008.

01:11:30 and it's for decision by uh among others the councillor fiona buxton cabinet member for housing services adult social care public health and environmental health and it's a

01:11:41 and environmental health and it's a report by the chief housing officer and the subject in in caps is temporary changes to the management agreement between the royal borough of kensington and chelsea and the tenant management

01:11:52 and chelsea and the tenant management organization

01:11:56 have you seen this document before um i don't remember seeing it but i um i would have thought that i would have read it on joining i would have been

01:12:07 read it on joining i would have been made aware of it and probably read it in the february of 2009.

01:12:11 2009. right if you go to page four please and look at the top of that page you can see that it's

01:12:17 that it's signed off by sue daniels chief housing officer was she your predecessor yes she was

01:12:22 was right and co-signed by jean dantith executive director for housing health and adult social care she stayed on i think you were a co-worker with her weren't you um she was my line manager even better

01:12:35 um she was my line manager even better now we if we go back to page one you can see that paragraph 1.1 on page one uh she says i'm writing to seek your approval to temporary changes to the tmo modular management agreement mma with

01:12:46 modular management agreement mma with the council to enable the council to take a guiding role in service delivery and establish an adjudication service these changes have been requested by the tmo board

01:12:55 tmo board and paragraph 2.1 she says this over the last six months the tmo has experienced increasing disruption to its governance arrangements stemming from the suspension of two board members

01:13:06 from the suspension of two board members and their eventual expulsion from the board for disciplinary breaches and were you aware of that fact when you arrived in february 2009 i would have been made aware of it right

01:13:17 right do you know what those breaches were no i don't remember do you know why they did you know why they were expelled no if we go to paragraph 3.1 please

01:13:29 no if we go to paragraph 3.1 please 3.1 on page two halfway down under the heading need it says tma performance statistics have shown a downturn

01:13:38 downturn in recent months most notably with the repair service the tmo are faced with re-tendering the service at this time which could further negatively affect performance if not very actively managed additionally council officers have been

01:13:49 additionally council officers have been concerned over the last year at a series of internal audit reports which indicate limited assurance with the services and functions audited such as governance risk management and major repairs backlog among others

01:14:03 now it goes on later to recommend as a preferred option that a partnership direct to be appointed for six months along with an adjudication service for

01:14:14 along with an adjudication service for residents you find that on page four page three paragraph 5.4 i'm summarizing it

01:14:21 it and also on page four of paragraph 7.1 in fact that was the recommendation adopted wasn't it uh yes it would appear to be do you

01:14:32 uh yes it would appear to be do you remember seeing a deed of variation dated the 18th of july 2008 which which varied the mma um i would have seen it when i came uh but i don't recall it now

01:14:43 but i don't recall it now right do you remember whether when you arrived that these these temporary measures were still in pr in place i don't think that they were no right do you know whether an improvement plan was agreed between the

01:14:54 improvement plan was agreed between the tmo

01:14:55 tmo and rbkc um in 2000 in the june 2018 i i don't know eight 2008 sorry uh no i don't know if it was right um right mr chairman we're going to go

01:15:07 um right mr chairman we're going to go to a different document but still on the same topic and as ever i'm somewhere away from a wholesale change of topic um this might be a convenient moment well if if you think it's a convenient point

01:15:18 if you think it's a convenient point then well i'm about to look at a fairly lengthy document so i think this is a good time to take the short break so we'll take it now we'll come back at half past three please thank you

01:15:27 thank you and please don't discuss your evidence

01:15:39 and please don't discuss your evidence now for three then please

01:33:33 would you ask ms johnson to come in please

01:33:37 please [Applause]

01:33:52 all right ms johnson yeah ready to carry on oh yes thank you very much yes mr mr chairman mr johnson i i think i need to correct something with you uh that i may have misled you unwittingly about

01:34:04 unwittingly about can i show you please uh the uh final report to cabinet and the minutes which did increase the budget to 10.3 million pounds just to be clear the minutes are at rbk

01:34:17 just to be clear the minutes are at rbk zeros

01:34:23 because what we looked at was a draft and here are the minutes and if yeah 19th of june 2014

01:34:35 and if yeah 19th of june 2014 and if you if you look down please to a8

01:34:43 to a8 on page 5 you will see there the actual resolution which is uh to increase the capital budget for this scheme to 10.3 million pounds

01:34:54 million pounds which allows a six percent contingency to be established you see that yes it is i think that puts puts that makes that clear um now can we then pick matters up where

01:35:05 um now can we then pick matters up where we had we were going to go next which is the mamoli report can i ask you just to look at that please at iws four zero is one four six two

01:35:23 and uh this is a report prepared by maria mamoli mba entitled investigation report on long-standing complaints of the kensington and chelsea tmo

01:35:34 kensington and chelsea tmo and if you go to page 2 you can see that at the foot there it bears the date of 10th of april 2009 as it also does at page 47. um do you remember seeing this report uh

01:35:48 do you remember seeing this report uh when it was first produced yes you do how did you come become aware of it um it was report that was commissioned i believe before i uh began working at rbkc

01:36:00 uh began working at rbkc um and then i was advised that this was being undertaken um i saw a draft and then i saw the final right did you read it yes what was the background to the

01:36:11 yes what was the background to the commissioning of this report um i wasn't working at rbkc then so i'm not entirely sure um if you go to page three you can see the recommendation to establish an

01:36:23 the recommendation to establish an adjudication service

01:36:27 at the very foot of the page you can see some of the main recommendations are customer care relations and then if you turn the page

01:36:36 you can see

01:36:40 top of page four customer care training program

01:36:44 program tmo staff appraisals and then under customer services and complaints a review of the complaint procedure second bullet point down uh review procedure for tenant repairs

01:36:55 uh review procedure for tenant repairs response times and follow-up repairs major works and service charges etc and then if you go to page um if you if you stay on page four under that heading it says under the first

01:37:06 that heading it says under the first bullet point the council should take a more robust role to ensure tmo technical services are capable of delivering an effective major works program and cyclical repairs do you know whether the tmo acted on

01:37:18 do you know whether the tmo acted on that recommendation um i don't specifically but when the report was delivered the 10th of april 2009 it was a period where the old

01:37:31 it was a period where the old chief exec well the previous the chief exec prior to mr black and the uh their exec team was in the uh was departing or had departed and then a new chief executive was being

01:37:43 then a new chief executive was being appointed

01:37:44 appointed and a new exec team was coming into place over the next over a period of time so

01:37:48 time so um regardless of whether uh this report recommended it i fairly sure that um mr black would have put that in place right you're fairly sure he would have

01:37:59 right you're fairly sure he would have put it in place i'm sure he would he did put it in place it should be more definitive did he put it in place before the grenfell tower project some years later yes yes now as we know you were recruited

01:38:10 yes now as we know you were recruited initially as a second d to rbkc in february 2009. uh in may 2009 do you remember drafting a key decision report

01:38:22 do i remember drafting about what well let's look at it rbk3018526

01:38:38 rbk3018526 this is a key decision report it looks as if it's a draft because it doesn't have a date at the very top and if you scroll down to page

01:38:50 to page five you can see that you are the contact officer in respect to this document and on the bottom of page four scrolling up one it's signed by or written by you

01:39:03 up one it's signed by or written by you and jean dentis and if we go to page one please

01:39:08 please uh we can see uh that under paragraph 1.1

01:39:12 1.1 it says this report outlines the ongoing governance problems within the tenant management organization tmo it also proposes action that the council can take under the modular management agreement mma to ensure both the border aware of our

01:39:23 to ensure both the border aware of our serious concerns over their performance and to assist the new chief executive officer ceo of the tma to assist the board in working cohesively and focusing on performance what were

01:39:34 and focusing on performance what were the serious concerns that you had concerning the tma's performance at that time gosh this is quite a long time ago so um

01:39:42 so um [Music]

01:39:44 [Music] so i seem to remember from 2009 that there was concerned about the performance of the board and the reason for this key decision report was about board performance what was it

01:39:57 was about board performance what was it what was the what was the concern um i believe

01:40:00 believe i'm really sorry i can't remember this in any detail and if i knew i was going to be questioned on this i would have read it in more detail before coming but uh i believe it was about you know sort of the lack of function at

01:40:12 you know sort of the lack of function at the the poor functioning of the governance structure of the tmo well let's look and see how we how well we do if we go down to paragraph three on page two you could see that it says need

01:40:23 see that it says need and you say is outlined above the situation that the tmo in relation to governance is precarious while other performance measurements are at present showing some improvement there are however doubts as to whether this can be maintained where the board

01:40:35 this can be maintained where the board are unable to demonstrate clear leadership of the organization

01:40:41 why did you describe the situation that the tma is precarious do you remember

01:40:53 um there was dispute within the board and the board who are directors of the company we're not acting in the company's best

01:41:05 not acting in the company's best interest

01:41:05 interest on what particular subjects do you remember um [Music]

01:41:12 i don't if i'm honest with you it's uh you know it's nearly 12 years ago now so but um there was uh no i'm really sorry i can't i can't

01:41:23 uh no i'm really sorry i can't i can't give the inquiry any great accuracy so i'd rather not say right let's uh let's look at page um three then paragraph four options you can see there are some

01:41:34 four options you can see there are some options that you you set out there

01:41:38 and over onto page four you can see option four and that is the option if you look at paragraph six that is recommended by you uh

01:41:49 that is recommended by you uh at the bottom and if you look at option four under paragraph 4.4 a little higher up

01:41:54 up you say the council could serve a breach notice under the mma as described based on governance failings and underperformance against the requirements of the improvement plan this would give a clear indication of

01:42:05 this would give a clear indication of the significance of the ongoing governance failings in the tmo to the council

01:42:08 council and potentially assist the new ceo of the tmo and his message to the board that they must work together the council would also be prepared alongside service of the notice to make clear to the tmo that it is keen to provide assistance to

01:42:20 that it is keen to provide assistance to the tmo if requested to allow improvements to be made does that help a recommendation um what how does it help uh because it because it it confirms to me

01:42:31 because it because it it confirms to me that it was on governance failings um and the local authority had four nominees to the tma board uh they were tenant uh representatives

01:42:42 uh they were tenant uh representatives on the board and independence um and my uh from recollection um i don't think the four uh the that the members the the board representatives from the

01:42:55 the the board representatives from the tenant

01:42:55 tenant and leaseholder body were not acting in the best interests of the company and there needed to be and there were also independents on the board i can't remember who they were at this

01:43:06 i can't remember who they were at this particular time but i can only come back to the fact that that board members were not acting in the best interests of the company and there was some there was a agm

01:43:18 and there was some there was a agm held prior to my joining the tmo which had been extremely uh contentious um now you recommend the service of a breach notice

01:43:29 service of a breach notice do you remember that in fact a breach notice was served yes it was on the 10th of june 2009 yes we don't need to go to it it's at rbk3027247

01:43:41 rbk3027247 do you remember what the effect of the breach notice was did it have an effect uh yes it did because uh with the breach notice came an improvement plan and then there was a clear set of

01:43:52 clear set of recommendations that the tmo had to work through in order to be able to improve performance did they yes

01:43:59 can we go to rbk3030145 [Applause] now um this is a a

01:44:12 now um this is a a an undated document of authorship which i'm afraid i can't identify for you but on the first page you can see that

01:44:24 but on the first page you can see that it says advantages of using kctmo and then at the foot concerns of using kctmo

01:44:30 kctmo have you seen this document before i don't believe i have you don't you haven't

01:44:34 haven't right let me see how we how we go if we look at concerns and scroll down it says no experience of regenerational development this lack of experience runs from the

01:44:46 this lack of experience runs from the board to the exec team officers and to residents there is no capacity within the existing structure and whilst there is restructuring taking place consultants are being used on the projects which have been started no experience of the financial

01:44:58 no experience of the financial implications and risks associated with development uh and then at the foot of the page perhaps this will help you with timing response so far to the projects they

01:45:09 response so far to the projects they have been given have not addressed areas where capacity still where capacity needs to be built to counting of garages at silchester consultation at trellic at um hired consultants not developing capacity

01:45:23 consultants not developing capacity does that help you identify the timing of that no

01:45:31 are these concerns concerns that you have seen expressed to you at any time during your role they were definitely expressed to me in 2009 when i joined the tmo and

01:45:48 right do you did you agree with those concerns from what you could tell the tmo when i joined the rbkc uh was in a very difficult place and had

01:45:59 uh was in a very difficult place and had been

01:46:00 been experiencing a number of issues with an exec

01:46:03 exec team that was fractious and disorganized and fighting amongst itself and a board that was failing to provide correct governance and then although i'm not involved in

01:46:14 and then although i'm not involved in the detail of how the team tmo was run or speaking to officers generally i believe there was quite poor morale amongst officers in the tmo at that time

01:46:22 that time right and if you go to page two the top of that page please

01:46:28 it says this is not transparent in the organization and there is a lack of accountability at present for the projects which are being undertaken did was it your experience that there had been or was a lack of transparency

01:46:39 had been or was a lack of transparency and accountability within the tmo or by the tma

01:46:42 the tma relating to how projects were undertaken uh

01:46:45 uh there may well have been prior to serving of the breach notice but following the appointment of mr black and the breach notice and the improvement plan

01:46:56 improvement plan then the performance of the tmo slowly improved

01:47:00 improved right in the light of the concerns we expressed in this document and i know you can't identify that the date of its production but do you agree

01:47:07 agree that the size and strategic importance of the grenfell tower project called for very close scrutiny by rbkc of the tmo's management of it

01:47:19 of it um i think that's quite difficult to say not knowing when this document was dated because the grenfell tower project came sometime later but i do agree with the fact that rbkc

01:47:31 but i do agree with the fact that rbkc and its client-side function needed to scrutinize the performance of the tmo on grandfather i now want to move from your role in relation to the grenfell tower project to ask you some questions about the way

01:47:42 to ask you some questions about the way in which rbkc supervised the tmo more generally okay and i'm going to ask my start by asking some questions about the modular management agreement the mma if i can

01:47:52 i can um you say in your first witness statement uh at paragraphs 12 and 13 there's need to turn them up but your role as director of housing involves managing

01:48:03 managing four department department heads one of whom was housing commissioning that's correct right we're the housing commissioning team responsible for managing the modular

01:48:15 responsible for managing the modular management agreement the mma with the tma yes and was the housing commissioning team managed by amanda johnson

01:48:21 johnson yes it was at all at all times no it was when i joined rbkc it was managed by a lady called pam sedgwick pam sedgwick right and then uh she left

01:48:32 pam sedgwick right and then uh she left rb casey

01:48:33 rb casey and amanda johnson took over that role and amanda johnson reported to you yes she did so do you agree that you had some responsibility for managing the agreement with the tma

01:48:45 for managing the agreement with the tma yes yes

01:48:46 yes yes now housing commissioning was as you've said one of four teams within the rbkc housing department and i think that but you were responsible for managing a total of about 120 people

01:48:57 for managing a total of about 120 people weren't you that's correct and is it right that um out of that 120 people 10 people worked within the housing commissioning service or department

01:49:08 service or department um i can't remember exact numbers but there would have been a number of people who worked within that function yeah sounds about right it sounds about right sounds about right

01:49:16 right and of those is it right that there was only one namely celia kaliscan who worked full time to oversee the tma's performance and the extent to which it discharged its duties under the mma that's correct

01:49:28 mma that's correct did you ever consider whether that that was a sufficient resource um so celia worked on full-time on the tma

01:49:39 so celia worked on full-time on the tma but it was also supplemented by work undertaken by amanda johnson and at times other members of her team and then there were other officers within the council

01:49:50 within the council within my department who undertook roles in relation to not specifically in their job title managing the tma but had some relationship with the tmo on particular items did i consider it was sufficient

01:50:02 did i consider it was sufficient [Music]

01:50:07 it's quite a difficult question to answer in the context of an organization which has um a board and has uh the right to manage and has direct responsibility to an

01:50:18 direct responsibility to an uh an executive team um i suppose i probably thought it was a bit light if i'm honest right did you did you express that thought

01:50:26 thought that you've just um shared with us to anybody

01:50:30 anybody at rbkc um i don't remember expressing that

01:50:34 that for example to the deputy leader or the leader or anyone in cabinet no i don't remember i did why was that um because i was just sort of under the impression that i just had to

01:50:45 just had to get on with the resources that i had if i'm honest right was there no means by which you could go to somebody more senior and say well i i need an

01:50:54 need an extra pair of hands or two pairs of hands if i had been um utterly convinced of the rationale in order to have further resources in that team

01:51:01 team then i'm quite sure i could have made a case for it right but you didn't think to do no i didn't know right um can we go to your first witness statement please at page six

01:51:11 uh and look at paragraph 26

01:51:15 now you say there that the council's relationship with the tma was set out in the mma and in the same paragraph five lines down you say in practice it is an

01:51:26 down you say in practice it is an unwieldy document that has little practical use when managing a contract day to day during the period of the grenfell tower refurbishment itself uh how familiar were you with the

01:51:37 uh how familiar were you with the precise provisions of the mma um so i had read the mma when i had started at rbkc um i had looked at it again when we had undertaken a review i think in 2010

01:51:50 had undertaken a review i think in 2010 um and then we had undertaken a further review of the mma i believe about 2015 around that period so at all of those points i would have

01:52:02 so at all of those points i would have um

01:52:04 um had i would have uh reviewed the contents of the mma so i was familiar with them at the time of the grenfell tower uh refurbishment program

01:52:12 program but as i said it wasn't something that i kept on my desk and i referred to as a daily basis no uh why did you consider it to be unwieldy

01:52:19 unwieldy uh well if you've seen a copy of the mma it's absolutely enormous and if you are going to use that in your day-to-day management of a client-side relationship

01:52:30 management of a client-side relationship it's just not practical to have something that size or that detailed um and it was a it was a document drafted

01:52:37 drafted um some years ago in order to help the management of tmos by uh maybe in the department of environment that then morphed into subsequent departments in government and i think it was probably really

01:52:49 and i think it was probably really designed

01:52:51 designed for what tmas normally are with housing organizations which are much smaller organizations of maybe two to three hundred units you know sort of where

01:53:00 of where um you may have a small tmo that manages an estate and you use an mma for that purposes but my impression was

01:53:07 was rightly or wrongly whether it wasn't really fit for purpose for managing when you had an organization which had undertaken the right to manage and had had a

01:53:18 the right to manage and had had a wholesale management of the stock so nine and a half thousand units using that particular document it just wasn't particularly useful and we wrote to the department of

01:53:31 and we wrote to the department of communities and local government expressing that opinion and asked them if they would like to if they were considering re-drafting they prescribed mma and i think they wrote back to us and said no

01:53:42 wrote back to us and said no right did the unwieldiness that's the right word of this document and the problems that you've identified with it just now cause you any practical difficulties on

01:53:53 cause you any practical difficulties on a day-to-day basis um no not not particularly i mean on reflection it would have been far better to have a much more uh user-friendly contractual document

01:54:04 uh user-friendly contractual document that could have been referred to when talking to the tmo perhaps about performance or about um particular issues that were much more uh referenceable but i in in you sort of get on with what

01:54:17 i in in you sort of get on with what you're giving and given and when i got there i understood i had the mma that set out the terms of the agreement between the council and the cmo acknowledge that and then you get on with the job did the mma in your view at the time set

01:54:30 did the mma in your view at the time set out

01:54:30 out clearly enough the responsibilities of rbkc and tmo yes i believe it did yeah it it it did that function if rbkc had concerns about how the tmo

01:54:41 if rbkc had concerns about how the tmo was

01:54:41 was complying with its obligations or exercising its functions did was it your view at the time that the mma provided sufficiently clear practical steps for for notifying the tmo of any concerns about that um

01:54:56 the tmo of any concerns about that um i cannot recall the mma in sufficient detail to understand what the practical steps are

01:55:01 steps are if there was particular concerns that we had about

01:55:04 had about uh performance of the tmo because we would deal with those through regular meetings that we had with the tmo but i think as we demonstrated in 2009 and previously in 2008

01:55:16 in 2009 and previously in 2008 when we did have concerns about the tmo we use the mma can we go to tmo10030810 page 87 please

01:55:31 one tm010030810 play g87 this is chapter eight of the mmo mma

01:55:42 entitled performance monitoring and reviewing of standards part one the tma's performance standards paragraph 1.3 the tmo agrees to provide

01:55:55 paragraph 1.3 the tmo agrees to provide information to enable the council to monitor the effective performance on the tmo the tmo's key participators will and then it's a series of obligations are there set out in general terms which individuals at

01:56:08 in general terms which individuals at rbkc during your tenure there were responsible for monitoring the tmo was it you um amanda johnston and celie chaliscan who reported to you yes yes and and within rbkc

01:56:22 yes yes and and within rbkc did you report to anybody in respect of that function or were you the last line manager no i reported to gene danteth when i was in the department for housing adult social care and

01:56:34 housing adult social care and environment right and then when uh tri borough came along that department was dissolved and i was a single borough service so i was only a service

01:56:43 service housing department service just for rbkc and then i reported to the chief exec directly to the chief executive that's correct

01:56:52 correct who was that nicholas holgate who's the town clerk yes right it's time clock it's an interchangeable town clark is the uh what you would normally call a chief exec in a housing

01:57:03 normally call a chief exec in a housing association but rbkc perhaps had some slightly old-fashioned terminology well i was going to

01:57:07 going to i was asked going to ask you about that but but because we've seen chief executive

01:57:11 executive in documents but that's knickers nicholas holgate that's correct right uh and when was when was the tribe when was the triboro

01:57:23 when was the tribe when was the triboro dissolved when when did you start reporting to nicholas holgate directly um oh uh i can't remember it was probably around 2012 i should i think but i can

01:57:34 2012 i should i think but i can you know go back and confirm those dates how is monitoring of the tmo conducted in practice by you by me um or by my department

01:57:45 by me um or by my department let's start with you okay i met with robert black on a monthly basis to talk about

01:57:51 about unminuted meetings to talk about the tmo and the local authority i shared areas of

01:57:58 of work and i met with amanda johnson on a monthly basis through supervision to talk about her areas of work and then the tmo board brought a report to

01:58:11 the tmo board brought a report to scrutiny committee on a six-monthly basis

01:58:13 basis setting out their performance i received copies of the tmo's board reports and i used to receive those in a paper copy format and review them and then i started to receive them via

01:58:25 and then i started to receive them via link that i could go and have a look via the website we'll come to your department shortly before i go to that you mentioned a moment ago that there had been two reviews during your time of the mma once in 2010 and once in

01:58:36 of the mma once in 2010 and once in 2015.

01:58:38 2015. i think you cover that at paragraph 27 of your i do your first statement what caused the mma to be reviewed in 2010

01:58:45 2010 april 2010 i don't remember to be honest with you what the rationale was for it then

01:58:50 then uh but it may have been that there had been uh

01:58:55 i don't remember to be honest what about uh in 2015 december 25th um i think in 2015 um if from recollection um i think there was a commitment to review the mma on a

01:59:07 was a commitment to review the mma on a kind of five yearly cycle to be honest but i can't be deaf i can't confirm that definitely because i can't remember um but i think there'd been such a change in how the tmo worked in practice and so it was timely to have

01:59:20 in practice and so it was timely to have a look at what was in the mma and update it

01:59:23 it do you remember what in broad terms what were the areas that were updated or changed in the 2015 review um i think it was quite

01:59:31 was quite it was quite a comprehensive update so there was updates across the board right

01:59:37 were there any changes in relation to monitoring such as the kpis or how the kpis would be i don't remember to be honest with you but it will be documented there's a

01:59:50 but it will be documented there's a committee report setting out now let's stick with where we are we're at paragraph 1.3 and as i've just shown you the it says

02:00:01 and as i've just shown you the it says the

02:00:02 the tma's key performance indicators will and there are a number of headings a be set in consultation with the council b take into account the length of time the tmo has managed the property dwellings under this

02:00:13 the property dwellings under this agreement the size of the tma in any local circumstances which may affect performance c broadly reflect the target set by the council for the management and maintenance of the comparator area specified in the annex which is under

02:00:24 specified in the annex which is under the council's direct management or managed by another organization d include targets set by the tmo to reflect local circumstances and e including at the start date the

02:00:35 including at the start date the performance indicators listed in the schedule which can be varied as provided for in the schedule now um do you remember do you agree that by virtue of this paragraph the tma was able to propose kpis

02:00:47 able to propose kpis in consultation with rbkc yes did that ever happen yes can you give us an example of an occasion when it did happen so on an annual basis we would review the key performance indicators that the

02:00:59 the key performance indicators that the tmo monitored performance against and then we would see if those key performance indicators were still appropriate in terms of uh the business and if we still wanted to

02:01:10 the business and if we still wanted to report on those particular areas i follow so i will come to some examples of this later on but is that that's the process whereby there's a review

02:01:18 a review of the year and an agreement for performance for the following year yes i see we'll see some of those reports in due course um can we go to rbk302999

02:01:30 um can we go to rbk302999 page two

02:01:36 page two this is a document entitled right to manage guidance modular management agreement for tenant management organizations and it comes from the office of the deputy prime minister

02:01:48 deputy prime minister uh dated july 2005 as you can see and if we turn to um uh well first of all are you familiar with this document um i may have read it in the past but i

02:01:59 um i may have read it in the past but i can't write it but you will if you were you would see it it provides a model tma sorry mma if you look at page 110 please you can see that there's a

02:02:11 please you can see that there's a there are schedules of key performance indicators or kpis and it says there the the tmo's key performance indicators to enable it to measure its performance against it the

02:02:23 measure its performance against it the standards it's required to achieve under the agreement must be listed in annex a to this schedule this must also describe the basis on which the indicators have been set the council's key performance indicators to enable it to measure its

02:02:34 indicators to enable it to measure its performance against the standards it's required to achieve under the agreement must be listed in annex b to this schedule this must also describe the basis on which the indicators have been set so that

02:02:45 the indicators have been set so that that's the as it were the the template that the government put out in ja in the summer of 2005. can we now look at the

02:02:54 the mma between tmo and rbkc uh volume 2 at rbk3053628 page 119.

02:03:14 page 119. uh and i help me with this that that is is

02:03:17 is is it not the corresponding page for annex a

02:03:22 annex a in the template provided by the government i believe it is yes now we haven't been able to find an annex b setting out the council's key performance indicators

02:03:33 performance indicators it's right isn't it there wasn't in fact an nxb

02:03:36 an nxb i don't believe there was no do you know why there was no nxb no did it ever occur to you that it was and that was missing

02:03:47 it was and that was missing uh no i would have expected um our legal services team to be advised me if that if there was a missing documentation in the mma you never raised it though with them no i did not

02:04:00 now just looking at the these tma performance indicators under annex a you can you can scroll down to look at the whole of page 119

02:04:14 if you just cast your eye down there you can see what's not there do you accept that none of those kpis related to fire safety yes do you accept that none of those kpis related to vulnerable residents

02:04:38 kpis related to vulnerable residents um they don't specifically relate to vulnerable residents but it may well be picked up with a tendency in estate management that's the sixth one down yes or fifth one

02:04:48 one right down i see none related to fire risk assessments performance or uh performed

02:04:58 no they do not or the number of fire risk assessment reviews performed no or significant fire risk assessment actions completed

02:05:10 actions completed no they do not or backlog of fras fire

02:05:15 fire risk assessment actions no they do not

02:05:18 not um would any of those things come within the

02:05:23 the heading tenancy and estate management

02:05:28 um they're more likely to come under a heading for health and safety to be honest with you which is not which is not apparent in this list no yeah can we then look at the 2015 mma

02:05:41 can we then look at the 2015 mma uh please at tmo1003080 at page 96

02:05:55 this is volume 2 chapter 8 at page 96. uh and you can see from this that

02:06:08 uh and you can see from this that well perhaps confirm for me that the 2015 mma superseded the 2005 mma as revised in 2010 in in at least that it no longer listed kpis but instead set out the

02:06:20 listed kpis but instead set out the process for selecting them yes and you can see that from the the text

02:06:25 text below annex a tma performance indicators what's the effect of the 2015 mma that kpis were essentially set annually

02:06:41 i cannot so clearly there's a link between the mma and the setting of key performance indicators because that's set out in the modular management agreement which is our contractual document but i to be honest with you

02:06:54 document but i to be honest with you can't remember whether the setting of kpis annually preceded the 2005 uh mma whether it become custom and practice prior to that or whether it happened following from

02:07:05 or whether it happened following from 2015.

02:07:07 2015. i see was the general effect here that kpis would be set annually in conjunction with the tmo yes we would review the we would review the key performance indicators

02:07:19 the key performance indicators that were reported to the local authority um and we would uh take a view about how useful they were

02:07:26 they were at being able to report on the performance and able to give the council an accurate understanding of how key areas were performing does that mean that you that the the identity of kpis would vary from year to

02:07:38 identity of kpis would vary from year to year yes they could do yeah and why would you drop some um because sometimes

02:07:43 sometimes you have worded it badly or it's producing information which doesn't necessarily tell you anything uh particularly helpful

02:07:53 helpful or so commonly for kpis you would be looking at rent rent collection you'd be looking at void turn around times you'd be looking at asb cases

02:08:05 you'd be looking at asb cases and sometimes you put new kpis in thinking that they were going to help you to understand better performance but sometimes they just didn't would you add kpis where you saw weakness in the tma's performance yes we

02:08:16 weakness in the tma's performance yes we would yeah we could or we would we might not necessarily use key performance indicators we might use other forms of reporting so we we could have asked the tmo to

02:08:28 we we could have asked the tmo to provide information in terms of their six months report because some areas of performance might not lend themselves particularly to a statistical return but may lend themselves to a more narrative

02:08:39 themselves to a more narrative can we look please at rbk3048489

02:08:51 can we look please at rbk3048489 this is uh a document let me get to it called the tenant management organization monitoring procedure guide and this was an appendix wasn't it to the 2015 mma

02:09:04 the 2015 mma yes take it from me that it was are you familiar with this document do you think

02:09:16 um i will have read it but i'm not familiar with it right you see i ask you because under the third paragraph under the first section background it says this procedure guide should be read in conjunction with the mma

02:09:27 conjunction with the mma but sets out the day-to-day monitoring function of the tmo undertaken by the housing commissioning team its client in its client-side role now given what you told us about the reporting lines

02:09:38 you told us about the reporting lines um you were ultimately responsible for the day-to-day monitoring function of the tmo

02:09:44 the tmo undertaken by your housing commissioning team so that would that not have required you to be familiar with this document um

02:09:56 i'm familiar with lots of documents in a very busy department um and so uh i would say i had read this document but i wouldn't say that i uh i used it on a regular i did

02:10:09 uh i used it on a regular i did i have read it but i'm not familiar with it and that's as far as i can say right uh i mean in your role as supervising celia kaliscan and amanda johnson

02:10:20 johnson would this document have not have been your touchstone i did not use it as my touchstone should you have done um i met with amanda johnson and celie

02:10:32 um i met with amanda johnson and celie chelsea

02:10:32 chelsea on an almost daily basis to talk about issues of the day and i didn't think i necessarily needed their monitoring procedure guide in order to help me to undertake that role right

02:10:46 to undertake that role right there was an earlier version of this document in 2009. do you remember that remember using that no right

02:10:54 no right um let's just look at this one uh page three please uh performance indicators under paragraph three it says the performance indicators are a

02:11:05 it says the performance indicators are a mixture of indicators taken from uh old the national indicators nis best value pis and local indicators that are chosen by the tmo and council

02:11:16 that are chosen by the tmo and council to demonstrate improving performance in areas of importance to the service does that broadly represent the kpi's set and monitored by rbkc yes i believe it does do you agree that

02:11:27 yes i believe it does do you agree that paragraph 3 stipulates that both the tmo and rbkc have roles to play in setting kpis um we set the we set a headline of kpis

02:11:39 um we set the we set a headline of kpis with the tmo but the tmo also set their own kpis and best value pis and opi's as well and if you look on uh it uh it says um in the last sentence the

02:11:52 uh it says um in the last sentence the targets are set using national data for councils and almost collected through benchmarking clubs and from other council partners does that accord with your understanding of how

02:12:03 your understanding of how targets were set for the tmo kpis um so we we uh gosh i can't remember who the benchmarking club that uh the tmo were a member of

02:12:14 member of uh but it definitely aids you in being able to understand broadly what kpis are being set across the industry right and what scrutiny did rbkc apply generally to new kpis before

02:12:28 rbkc apply generally to new kpis before they were approved or agreed with the tmo

02:12:31 tmo we would probably review them at our management team meeting or i would discuss them with amanda johnson and celie celliscan now a paragraph 28 of your first witness statement

02:12:41 statement on page seven there's no need to go to it you you say uh that um well you mentioned the tmo annual performance reviews which included reports on whether the tmo met key performance indicators

02:12:52 the tmo met key performance indicators in any given year yes um is it right that celia chaliskan drafted the annual performance reviews um she drafted them in conjunction with the tmo

02:13:02 the tmo who at the tmo um it would have been a variety of people from the tmo would have fed into that report do you know who they were generally or whether they varied

02:13:13 whether they varied they would have varied and there would have been celia would have contacted different people across the tmo in order to ask them to provide information and then i have no doubt in the tmo there was probably somebody

02:13:24 the tmo there was probably somebody coordinating that information as well i see and what was your role in signing off those reports so i was given a draft of the reports to review and i read through them and if i had any queries or concerns

02:13:35 had any queries or concerns or there was anything that i didn't understand that i would then go back to celia and or sometimes go back direct to the tmo

02:13:42 the tmo to ask them for further advice or information and then when i was happy with the report i would go back to celia and say i was happy with the contents of that report and then it would would go forward to a scrutiny committee

02:13:53 would go forward to a scrutiny committee i see

02:13:54 i see and did you have the performance agreement

02:13:59 agreement for that particular year side by side with

02:14:02 with the review of that particular year so i received uh the key performance indicators quite regularly from the tmo so i knew how they

02:14:11 they were performing across the across the year but i um i didn't sit with the performance agreements next to me whilst i reviewed the uh tmos annual performance review

02:14:22 performance review deployment why was that uh i it just it wasn't a document that i used on a day-to-day basis i mean logic would dictate wouldn't it that if you had an agreement for a given

02:14:33 that if you had an agreement for a given year

02:14:34 year and then you were reviewing kpis actually met for that year you would compare the two oh i understand what you mean sorry i thought you meant as an abstract

02:14:42 abstract i would be so the the the performance the key performance indicators the targets were set and you could see by looking at the document whether they met them or not

02:14:53 document whether they met them or not because it was it was representative in the document itself as to what they were for that particular year was the um was rbkc's uh health and safety advisor involved in setting

02:15:05 involved in setting or agreeing kpis in any given year no why is that um the health and safety advisor for rbkc

02:15:16 the functions of of the health and safety changed over my time at rbkc

02:15:22 at rbkc particularly when we went to a tri-borough service but from when i joined rbkc there had never been involvement of health and safety because i didn't

02:15:33 health and safety because i didn't i didn't understand them to have to see the expertise in housing that would help us to set those kpis who was it at the tmo who would

02:15:44 who was it at the tmo who would contribute health and safety information to the annual reviews uh it would be my understanding that it would be janice ray jonas ray uh did rbkc's health and safety advisor

02:15:56 uh did rbkc's health and safety advisor to the extent that they were involved at all

02:15:57 all ever suggest that fire safety or any element of fire safety management should be the subject of the kpi no did you ever suggest make that suggestion

02:16:08 suggestion no was do you know why fire safety was never the subject of a kpi

02:16:16 no do you know why no individual elements of fire safety management such as for example closing out significant actions which had arisen as a result of a fire risk assessment never made the

02:16:28 fire risk assessment never made the subject of a kpi uh the in the six monthly and annual reports to uh to the tmo from the tmo to scrutiny committee there

02:16:39 from the tmo to scrutiny committee there was a quite a detailed narrative at the back of the report which weren't kpis but nevertheless updated us on the progress being made on fire risk assessments but other than that there may well have

02:16:52 but other than that there may well have been conversations between amanda johnson and in her monthly meetings with the tmo about fire risk assessments but it was never the subject of a particular kpi um and i just wonder why

02:17:03 particular kpi um and i just wonder why that is given that this is clearly a matter being discussed as we'll come on to why nobody ever said right it really is time that we had a kpi on this it would be my expectation if you're

02:17:14 it would be my expectation if you're going to have a kpi on compliance that you wouldn't just have a kpi on compliance for fire safety you would be looking at having kpis for all of the areas of compliance because

02:17:26 all of the areas of compliance because they're all equally as important so there are in compliance terms the big six

02:17:31 six which are water asbestos electric fire gas

02:17:35 gas lifts and you would be looking to not just single out one area but you would be looking to have all areas reported if you were going to have specific kpis on those

02:17:45 on those and i knew that the kp that performance was monitored through the health and safety committee by the tmo

02:17:54 and then reported to their board

02:18:01 when you say monitored through the health and safety committee whose health and safety committee the tmo's health and safety committee but how could how could k rbkc be

02:18:13 but how could how could k rbkc be you have to explain this to me you say i knew that performance was monitored through the health and safety committee by the tmo and then reported to their board that sounds as if maybe this is me misunderstanding your answer that the tma were essentially monitoring

02:18:25 that the tma were essentially monitoring themselves in relation to their compliance with health and safety matters uh in detail they were monitoring that performance and they report to their board

02:18:33 board which is uh in standard if you're a housing association you would have a board

02:18:38 board and in the same way you would report into your board and you wouldn't report anywhere else and in more general terms they were reported to the scrutiny committee but rbkc did not see the detail

02:18:49 rbkc did not see the detail in terms of scrutiny committee of the detail of those health and safety kpis but there were regular audits undertaken of the tmo and i got copies of all of those audits

02:19:01 and i got copies of all of those audits and read all of those audits and there were audits on health and safety undertaken right but no kpis that's correct so is it

02:19:10 it in summary is what you're telling us that in fact notwithstanding a a a procedure uh for kpis which had originally come

02:19:21 uh for kpis which had originally come from government uh health and safety did not fall within the kpi regime at all it did not

02:19:34 the kpi regime at all it did not let's look on then at an example of one of your annual reports on tmo performance for the year 2011 2012. this is a tmo one triple zero one

02:19:45 2012. this is a tmo one triple zero one two

02:19:46 two two four

02:20:01 uh just to give us an example of what we've been talking about th this is the one for july 2012 and it's a report on tma performance 20 2011 and 12 and the tma performance

02:20:12 2011 and 12 and the tma performance agreement for the following year you see that yes is this is this the kind of report that we were talking about earlier yes and it would contain the kpis in it

02:20:24 yes and it would contain the kpis in it uh yes it would look at page 14 we can see the 2011 and 2012 performance indicators and and there they are and they they started page 14 and they run on

02:20:36 started page 14 and they run on you can see how they're set out uh and there's the topic or title uh and various different figures across the page with a commentary and some smiley faces or perhaps

02:20:48 and some smiley faces or perhaps unsmiling faces depending on whether the target was met or not

02:20:53 or not and we we can see by a mission that none of those

02:20:56 of those uh related specifically to fire safety and is that that i'm assuming is for the reasons you've given yes yes uh and if you go to page 26 we have appendix b

02:21:07 appendix b which is the council's housing performance indicators for the same year again none of those relate specifically to health and safety or fire safety per se and again is that for

02:21:18 fire safety per se and again is that for the reasons we've discussed

02:21:24 yes

02:21:29 now take a point briefly tell me if you can't help me with this can we go please back to the tma monitoring procedure

02:21:39 procedure guide at rbk3048489 please

02:21:46 we looked at this before uh i i need now to look at the third paragraph on that page under paragraph three where it says data is monitored and collected quarterly or annually by the

02:21:57 collected quarterly or annually by the tmo and performance is monitored by the hc team on a quarterly basis through the tmo

02:22:01 tmo hra performance meetings and at the annual review meeting in preparation for the reporting to the cabinet member scrutiny committee members and the tma board members and then under the next heading quarterly monitoring

02:22:12 the next heading quarterly monitoring it says at the end of each quarter the hct

02:22:16 hct contacts the tma's business improvement team

02:22:20 team uh uh uh an hct is what housing commissioning is it yes housing commissioning team yes uh uh the tma either send over their scorecard or complete the performance

02:22:32 scorecard or complete the performance reporting template the hct checks the information to ensure the figures and the commentaries are correct and analyzes the trends completing the trends and targets columns are obtaining more information from the business improvement manager

02:22:43 from the business improvement manager if there are any anomalies or exceptions on performance [Applause] what was quarterly performance information provided by the tmo in advance of hra meetings

02:22:56 in advance of hra meetings um i wasn't at those hra meetings necessarily that's right generally though um i don't know to be honest with you you'd have to ask amanda johnson

02:23:05 johnson who ran those meetings you were ultimately responsible for ensuring that this meeting was being provided by the tmo though weren't you uh ultimately yes yes so do you remember there being any particular problems with

02:23:16 there being any particular problems with that information being received i don't right um if we go to page 16 in this document

02:23:21 document we have a schedule of meetings and reports

02:23:26 page 16

02:23:30 and there are some there are well there is a schedule um this is part of appendix five and under the heading on this page multi-agency meetings that tmo reps

02:23:41 multi-agency meetings that tmo reps attend you can see there's item two a complaints meeting operational group six weekly cabinet member for housing and complaints team is it in fact correct that no complaints meetings were ever convened

02:23:54 meetings were ever convened i don't remember there ever being a complaint convened do you know why that section of the tma monitoring procedure guide wasn't enforced

02:24:01 enforced no can we look at the 2006 mma which is an rbk 3019007 please at page 18.

02:24:13 3019007 please at page 18. this is as i say the 2006 mma and what i'm showing you is volume 1 chapter 1 and on that page clause 11.4 i'll just wait for it to pop up

02:24:37 rbk3019007 page 18. thank you that's there it is uh and uh

02:24:42 and uh it says uh under 11.4 the bwtmo will prepare a training plan at the beginning of each financial year a report on the training undertaken by

02:24:53 report on the training undertaken by bwtmo members and staff in the previous 12 months will be presented at the bwtmos agm a copy of this report will be sent to the council but now we know that in fact no such report was received

02:25:05 report was received from the tmo and i know this was 2006 but in your time from february 2009 do you ever remember seeing a report such as that from the cmo no do you know why rbkc

02:25:18 from the cmo no do you know why rbkc failed to ensure that such a training plan

02:25:21 plan was provided i think it was probably lost in the midst of time and in terms of references about what we requested the tmo information that we requested from the

02:25:32 information that we requested from the tmo

02:25:34 tmo uh right now again next to another topic mr chairman i'm not going to finish this topic which is really a sub topic do you think that would be a good point well i hate to i hate to pull four minutes early it's been quite

02:25:46 pull four minutes early it's been quite a long day it has i don't think uh ms johnson would mind if we were to finish a few minutes early uh in which case that may be a convenient moment mr chairman there we are thank you very much i think ms johnson

02:25:58 thank you very much i think ms johnson we've probably all had enough for one day

02:26:02 day i'm sorry i've got to ask you to come back to answer some more questions tomorrow but i think you were expecting that weren't you i was yes all right well we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or

02:26:13 talk to anyone about your evidence or anything

02:26:13 anything relating to it over the break okay all right thank you very much i would like to give of you thank you

02:26:28 [Applause]

02:26:32 thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow [Music]

02:26:50 you