Evidence from Laura Johnson (RBKC Director of Housing) regarding council oversight of the TMO. Reveals systematic failures in scrutiny, allowing TMO to mark its own homework and critical fire safety issues to go unaddressed.
00:00:38 [Music]
00:04:04 [Music]
00:07:58 [Music]
00:11:48 [Music]
00:13:42 [Music]
00:19:38 yes would you ask ms johnson to come back in please
00:20:00 right mr johnson ready to carry on as ready as i'll ever be good thank you very much yes yes mr chairman thank you ms johnson we're still on the topic of tmo scrutiny
00:20:11 tmo scrutiny can i ask you please to look at
00:20:18 rbk3030047
00:20:24 now this is a document entitled tmo hra meeting 17th of november 2009 and you are recorded as being in attendance together with others including mr robert black
00:20:35 including mr robert black and pam sedgwick whose name you can see there
00:20:38 there and also celia chaliscan purpose of meeting
00:20:41 meeting pam explained that before the improvement plan meetings a quarterly meeting was held to discuss tmo business and performance and if we go to paragraph 2.6 on page
00:20:53 and if we go to paragraph 2.6 on page two you can see that the minutes record as follows
00:20:58 uh if we can go to page yes page two two point six five brigade issues the tmo has told the fire brigade that they must be involved and kept informed of what's happening the business plan needs to take account
00:21:09 the business plan needs to take account of any strategic issues and this requires further discussion the risk assessments undertaken gave the same results as those undertaken by the tmo do you know what was meant there by the
00:21:20 do you know what was meant there by the strategic issues that required further consideration no but did you understand that lfb's issues or concerns about the risk assessments had now been resolved
00:21:32 assessments had now been resolved or not i don't remember to be honest it's from november 2009 and i can't remember right is this the first time you've seen this document um since 2009 yes you weren't showing this
00:21:45 since 2009 yes you weren't showing this during the course of your composition of your witness statements no right um right can we look at page four
00:22:00 please i want to show you the last but one paragraph but now in para 9.4 it says this laura said she was very pleased with the progress being made against the improvement plan and the business plan
00:22:12 now clearly at that stage you were aware of the
00:22:16 of the improvement plan and what it required and the business plan and what it required
00:22:19 required yes were you concerned at that point any longer about any of the issues previously raised by the lfb um
00:22:30 the lfb um uh i don't remember right i mean it's quite a broad statement were there any lingering concerns that you thought needed to be pursued um if i had thought there'd been any lingering concerns
00:22:42 any lingering concerns um then i'm sure they would have been documented in this piece of uh in this and these notes of these minutes but as i have made a statement at 9.4
00:22:51 at 9.4 to say that i was pleased with the progress in the improvement plan in the business plan then i'm sure i didn't have any lingering concerns um can we then look uh at
00:23:03 um can we then look uh at uh tmo double zero eight four seven three six
00:23:06 three six three
00:23:12 this is a report by the executive director for housing health and adult social care and the head of housing
00:23:23 head of housing dated the 24th of june 2010 or 4 a meeting on that date and it's a report on tma performance 2009
00:23:33 2009 2010 and tma performance agreement 2010 to 11. so and i think it's right that this was a familiar
00:23:43 familiar format or type of report that would be produced from 2009 onwards yes that's correct and signed by you yes yes that's correct
00:23:53 and again is this a doc we can see your your name um at page three uh above that of gene dainties again can we take it that although you didn't you weren't responsible for the primary drafting of this document you would have
00:24:04 drafting of this document you would have read it
00:24:06 read it approved it and would not have signed it unless you had approved it that's correct now can we
00:24:16 look please at page three on page two
00:24:23 you can see there that paragraph two covers uh tmo performance and paragraph three covers conclusion for 2009 to 10
00:24:36 conclusion for 2009 to 10 that you could see by the absence there of any reference that there's no reference to the cell bus management report that we saw earlier about the tmos fire safety management
00:24:48 about the tmos fire safety management systems
00:24:49 systems from september 2009 is there no nor is there any mention there of the lfb's threatened enforcement notice uh albeit of course as we know no
00:25:01 uh albeit of course as we know no enforcement notice was ultimately served no there isn't do you know why that's not there uh no i don't do you know why there's no reference of no reference to the salvas report um this was a cover report that went
00:25:13 um this was a cover report that went with a more detailed report so um i can't account for it not being mentioned in the cover report um but it may well be mentioned in the more detailed report that goes with it
00:25:24 more detailed report that goes with it right if it's not then uh then i can't account for why it is not in the cover report or why it is not in the more detailed report now looking at paragraph 3.1 in particular
00:25:35 particular it says the tmo has had a positive year with tangible performance improvements since the completion of the improvement plan in early january the tmo has been implementing the key strategies and working practices developed as part of
00:25:47 working practices developed as part of the improvement plan and embedded in the new business plan this will lead to continuing improvement in service delivery and further organizational benefits now the positive year there um is
00:25:58 now the positive year there um is described but that wasn't the case in respect of fire safety was it clearly not no uh did you know why um the exception for fire safety was not
00:26:10 um the exception for fire safety was not drawn to
00:26:11 drawn to the attention of the um scrutiny committee uh no i can't account for it now could we go to page seven please and look at paragraph five point one
00:26:24 look at paragraph five point one uh and this is i should tell you i'm so sorry i should have been clearer if you go to page five you'll see what this is this is the report on tenant management organization is this what you refer to as the
00:26:35 is this what you refer to as the detailed report that's exactly right okay so that's appendix one and you can see the executive summary there and if you go to page seven
00:26:47 and if you go to page seven you can see uh on that page uh item 5 audits 5.1 the table below shows all the audits that have been carried out by the council on the tmo in
00:26:58 carried out by the council on the tmo in 0910 financial year and then there's a box and you can see what's in the box there the stage reached quarter assurance and risk
00:27:08 risk and you can see if you cast your eye down the box that the assurances were uh all bar one satisfactory
00:27:21 uh all bar one satisfactory specifically in relation to the tmo's health and safety can you see that
00:27:27 that yes you can see that health and safety is just below halfway down and that got a satisfactory assurance with a medium risk did that audit include fire safety management processes
00:27:38 management processes or was it a purely financial audit um without having the audit in front of me it's very hard to say based on the fact that this is from 11 years ago
00:27:49 years ago but it would from recollection health and safety would have included fire right but not just financially but performance as well
00:28:00 performance as well uh yes but without having the order in front of me it's hard to say no i understand are you able to explain given the criticisms of salvas in its fire safety management
00:28:11 of salvas in its fire safety management reported september 20 2009 and the threat of enforcement by the lfb
00:28:16 the lfb also in 2009 how it could be correct to say
00:28:20 say uh that health and safety uh should have a
00:28:23 a satisfactory assurance with a medium risk i can't provide you an answer with that without having view of the health and safety audit and of course health and safety excuse
00:28:35 and of course health and safety excuse me if including all areas of health and safety
00:28:38 safety then accounts for the six key areas of health and safety which is um including fire so i can only draw the conclusion based on uh
00:28:48 on uh this this top line set out for me here that overall there was a satisfactory performance based overall on the health and safety function of the tmo let's just take it in stages doing
00:29:00 tmo let's just take it in stages doing the best we can without the audit that i can put my hands on immediately do i take it that when um signing off on the overall the accompanying report you would have read
00:29:11 accompanying report you would have read this document um i would have read the audit report yes the audit report yes when reading the audit report would you have have checked it uh and understood what conclude what the
00:29:22 uh and understood what conclude what the conclusions set out in it were based on the audit reports were audits undertaken but
00:29:29 but rbkc uh the tmo commissioned rbkc to do the audits well but they could have commissioned anybody to do the audits for them in fact rbkc's audit function undertook that for them but they they
00:29:41 undertook that for them but they they could have had any number of organizations do it for them um and the audits were shared with myself and shared with robert black and his team it wasn't up to me to sign off the audit
00:29:53 it wasn't up to me to sign off the audit that
00:29:54 that the tmo had undertaken that was between the tmo
00:29:57 the tmo and the audit team but i would have read the audits you would have read the audits if you had read the audits and if i apologize for piling hypotheses
00:30:08 and if i apologize for piling hypotheses together
00:30:09 together and if there had been reference to the conclusions reached by salvas in their fire safety management report of september or perhaps and the lfb threat of
00:30:22 or perhaps and the lfb threat of enforcement would you have questioned how a satisfactory assurance could have been given for health and safety um i may well have done but as i said it wasn't up to me to
00:30:34 wasn't up to me to sign off the audits because they were done between the tmo and rbkc audit but as i haven't got the report in front of me i really can't comment
00:30:43 comment well you say it wasn't up to you to sign off the audits because they weren't done between the tmo and rbkc audit but it was your responsibility and you were taking responsibility
00:30:54 were taking responsibility not just for describing the audit report but but but presenting it my question is if you had known of the salvas report and the lfb threatened enforcement
00:31:06 threatened enforcement would you have examined how it could be that the audit could have concluded that health and safety got a satisfactory or medium i may well have done uh but
00:31:19 i may well have done uh but um it is not entirely unusual for lfb to serve enforcement notices on housing organizations um for matters that have arisen that require
00:31:31 matters that have arisen that require attention
00:31:32 attention and it doesn't necessarily mean that your whole health and safety function is not satisfactory or indeed your response to fire is not satisfactory if there's an enforcement notice
00:31:42 notice about a particular building i appreciate that you're referring particularly to the overall arrangement for fire risk assessments but um but if you were to uh it is
00:31:53 um but if you were to uh it is i may well have looked at that had i remember had i seen the salvage report and i can't remember whether i did or not
00:31:59 not and taken a look at that and wondered why what the references were but this is purely hypothetical because i don't remember reading the audit i would have done but i don't remember now what i'm really trying to get at is really come to the conclusion that in
00:32:11 really come to the conclusion that in fact you didn't see the salvas report because
00:32:14 because had you seen the salvage report or a summary of what the service reported said
00:32:17 said you wouldn't have sent this report up in the way you did you would have said i don't understand why health and safety's got a satisfactory i hope i would but i can't guarantee it
00:32:28 i hope i would but i can't guarantee it i think it would be false for me to say that i would absolutely have acted in that manner because i don't think that would be fair well can you explain to me in circumstance the circumstances in which you would have uh looked at the salvos report seen the
00:32:40 uh looked at the salvos report seen the conclusions in it but nonetheless signed off on a satisfactory assurance um if well i'm not signing it off so it's not mine to sign off as i've said it's not my audit no but you're pres no
00:32:51 you're pres no but you're presenting this document i'm presenting this document record no good great respect you're not uh that is why we i started
00:33:02 you're not uh that is why we i started uh with
00:33:03 uh with uh where i started which which is your conclusion at paragraph three one but page two let's get back to it
00:33:15 you are are you not endorsing the findings of the audit there yes i am yes
00:33:22 yes and let me put it to you this way you would you if you had seen the salvus report
00:33:29 report and or the lfb enforcement the facts of the lfb enforcement have been able to sign off in that way together with the underlying audit report
00:33:43 quite honestly i don't know
00:33:46 my suggestion to you is that either you didn't see or didn't know about those matters in which case that was a failure of rbkc oversight or you did in which case you dropped the ball
00:33:58 ball um you're very welcome to draw that conclusion thank you
00:34:03 while we're on this document can i ask you to go to page six please
00:34:12 and on that page we see uh yeah in the middle of the page there's a pre-penultimate bullet point above performance information a new customer feedback system called tp tracker to
00:34:24 feedback system called tp tracker to measure customer satisfaction monthly and a new customer complaint procedure were introduced early in the year systems will need at least another two quarters to bed in before meaningful
00:34:35 quarters to bed in before meaningful data will be produced uh did you know anymore at that time or whatever perhaps about what the tp tracker was
00:34:47 what the tp tracker was um i did at the time no more about it but i can't recollect now right did you understand at the time or indeed ever that it was said to be a system to retain data about
00:34:58 said to be a system to retain data about residents with disabilities i don't remember knowing that right and i want to turn to the tmo performance reviews very similar to this document but moving forward in
00:35:09 to this document but moving forward in time if i may july 2014 can we go please to rbk 3032466
00:35:16 3032466 uh this is the tma performance review for 2013 to 14 new exhibitors lj20 and it's dated the 10th of july 2014 for the housing
00:35:28 the 10th of july 2014 for the housing and property security scrutiny committee and again if we can just look down it for the next page or two to page three
00:35:39 page or two to page three it follows really quite similarly the pattern of what we saw in the 2009-2010 version of this document and on page three we see your name yes yes and again can we assume that
00:35:51 yes yes and again can we assume that although you didn't draft it you read it through and approved it and wouldn't have approved it
00:35:57 it unless you're happy with it yes yes can we look at appendix one please uh
00:36:08 please uh which well in fact before i take you to that i should just cite you on paragraph three conclusion for 2013-14 a challenging and rewarding year for the tmo performance against key indicators
00:36:20 tmo performance against key indicators and
00:36:20 and audits has achieved good results and it is delivered in terms of setting up repairs direct increasing resident engagement and resident satisfaction reducing rent arrears to the lowest ever level as well as delivering new homes
00:36:32 as well as delivering new homes improving the management of commercial opportunities and parking and spending the capital program to maintain and improve the stock all of which have ensured
00:36:39 ensured that the tmo has met the terms set out in the 2013-14 performance agreement sorry to be that at length but it's important you you see that that is your conclusion uh and then if we move on please to
00:36:50 uh and then if we move on please to appendix one on page four we have what i think you call the is this the audit report it's entitled it's actually called the annual review but maybe not i think turns on that um it's
00:37:02 maybe not i think turns on that um it's not an audit report it's an annual review yes who actually compiled this part of this document you know
00:37:11 i don't know exactly who did it but it may have been uh celie chaliskan right
00:37:18 why do you say that because she put together the report she compiled the report
00:37:22 report with help from officers at the tmo i see now if you um well let me ask you this was any scrutiny applied
00:37:33 scrutiny applied to this document by c by anyone at the lrb kc you say that celia chaliscan would have drafted it with the tmo
00:37:44 would have drafted it with the tmo yes how did that work did celia kaliskan get presented with material from the tma which she scrutinized or was it a joint working effort um it was somewhat of a joint working effort so
00:37:55 of a joint working effort so she would ask the tma for information um in order to help put together this report they would provide her with information or draft various bits of the uh report that she would then review at
00:38:06 uh report that she would then review at amend um
00:38:07 amend um and she would uh go through it and then probably discuss it with amanda johnson so some of this drafting would be done by the tmo themselves yes that's correct is that right yes i see
00:38:21 uh well let's see if we can spot any of that
00:38:24 that um can we can we look at uh appendix one paragraph two on page 4 please
00:38:33 please it says purpose of the report the purpose of this report is to assess the tma's performance over the last year commenting on the various aspects of their activity in the borough which contribute to the council's strategic priorities
00:38:44 priorities so is this right that in assisting with the drafting of this the tmo was assisting in the drafting of an assessment of its
00:38:55 an assessment of its own performance it was helping to provide the information on their performance because there was no one else to provide information on their performance with only the tmo that can provide information on their performance
00:39:08 yes was the tmos input limited simply to the provision of factual information or do they actually assist in drafting
00:39:19 or do they actually assist in drafting those parts which could be said to be the exercise of judgment do you know um i don't know in any detail to be honest with you
00:39:25 with you um yeah it may well have been a mix right
00:39:29 right okay um if we look at paragraph 3.1
00:39:35 performance indicators the pi suite reflects the continued themes this year the target set have taken account of the potential implications the welfare reform legislation might have particularly in relation to rent
00:39:47 have particularly in relation to rent arrears
00:39:49 arrears and then if we look uh down a little further
00:39:54 further on the next page please
00:40:00 there is a bullet point which says the test of opinion and it says the test of opinion undertaken as part of the mma shows the satisfaction ratings amongst tenants and leaseholders
00:40:11 tenants and leaseholders has increased from 66 previously in 2006 to 75 do you know who drafted that no
00:40:21 can we look at your witness statement your first witness statement please page 23
00:40:28 and look at paragraph 95 on that page this is under the heading general fire safety measures across housing stock can you say i will set up below details from the tma
00:40:39 i will set up below details from the tma performance reviews relating to fire safety from the years 2013 to 2016. the generally positive results indicated that the tmo were meeting their kpis on fire safety across the housing stock in general kpis
00:40:51 across the housing stock in general kpis are of course key performance indicators uh what was that your own opinion there um actually i've amended that's that particular paragraph in a subsequent submission to the inquiry
00:41:02 submission to the inquiry yes um so that was my opinion based on the information in the annual reports yes but the statement the generally positive
00:41:13 positive yes that was your opinion right that was my opinion based on the uh the six monthly and annual performance reports presented to scrutiny committee right let's go back then to rbk three zero three two four six
00:41:24 zero three two four six six please which is what we were on a minute ago uh for uh this particular year uh and we can see pages five
00:41:35 uh and we can see pages five six and seven uh just casting your eye down
00:41:39 down those pages starting on page five perhaps
00:41:45 excuse me we can see the kpis and then the results against each other can't we yes yes there's no reference there to any performance indicator or kpi
00:41:58 performance indicator or kpi relating to fire safety is there no that's correct and there it wasn't in this one uh or in any of the years subsequently no there was a general commentary about fire safety and meeting the requirements uh meeting uh
00:42:10 the requirements uh meeting uh undertaking uh fire risk assessments but not kpis
00:42:14 not kpis right and how are you able to say that the tma was performing well because they were meeting the kpis if the kpis did not include fire safety um as i said i've amended that paragraph
00:42:25 um as i said i've amended that paragraph in my original statement to exclude the mention of kpis for high risk assessments yes that was an error in my original statement yes and it really takes me to this can you explain how you
00:42:36 takes me to this can you explain how you made that error originally um as a shorthand for performance i used the word kpi and it was an error on my behalf i see all right
00:42:46 all right now let's just look at the rest of the review on page seven on onwards under paragraph 3.2
00:42:55 and i think this um will also lead to the same answer given what you've just said these are reports on various aspects of the tmas activities but
00:43:06 the tmas activities but no no not part of the kpi monitoring themselves is that right uh rent collection uh kpis and arrears right um so all of these uh
00:43:18 and arrears right um so all of these uh with happy and smiley faces with percentage against them are key performance indicators no i'm so sorry paragraph 3.2 onwards is what i was looking at uh if you look at the lower part of the
00:43:30 if you look at the lower part of the screen yes my fault i should have directed your your eye to that that there's audits uh at the bottom of paris page seven yes and that's not part of the kpi system is it no no and then if you look at page eight
00:43:43 no no and then if you look at page eight uh it goes on 3.3 understand and respond to impact of welfare reform uh and on so this part of of this document is not about kpis is it no it's just a general commentary on
00:43:55 no it's just a general commentary on performance yes thank you now if you go on then to page 50 that section 3.9 against that confirmation uh you can see that this is where the report covers health and safety can't you
00:44:06 health and safety can't you yes that's correct and under that uh if you look at uh if you look at the bottom of page 15 you can see um that it says the well it includes
00:44:17 um that it says the well it includes fire safety as well as cleanliness yes in the box on the left and then it says the tma continues to work with the london fire brigade lfb and rbkc to ensure that residents are
00:44:28 and rbkc to ensure that residents are safe and the risk of firing blocks is minimized
00:44:30 minimized the program of communal area fire risk assessments and their reviews continue further significant progress has been made to address the recommendations made by
00:44:37 by these fras what did you mean what was meant there by significant progress
00:44:45 progress uh i don't know specifically in this case
00:44:48 case but i presume that uh that the tmo had uh had in place now a comprehensive set of fire risk assessments which were uh which looked based on risk
00:45:01 uh which looked based on risk of buildings that were high risk medium risk and low risk and had a set of actions that came out of those fire risk assessments that they were then addressing through a programme of remediation who made the judgment that there had
00:45:13 who made the judgment that there had been significant progress um this paragraph would have been drafted uh between janice ray and celia chaliscan
00:45:20 chaliscan to look at uh what had happened over the period
00:45:23 period um of the of the last six months to a year does that tell us that janice ray was herself involved in assessment of something for which she was responsible janice ray was uh was was helping us to draft that report yes
00:45:34 draft that report yes so she was to that extent marking her own homework um you could look at it like you could look at it like that but we uh didn't have uh that level of forensic detail in terms of looking at uh what the work of of their health and
00:45:46 uh what the work of of their health and safety team were so we would have uh taken it from janice that there was progress being made and that she would have then been asked to set out how that was taking place what was to stop her i think what has
00:45:58 what was to stop her i think what has just stopped you thinking to yourself well she would say that anyway wouldn't she um well i could have thought that but janice ray is a very good officer for the for the tmo um and did a very good job for them and i have no reason to believe that she was
00:46:10 i have no reason to believe that she was lying or duplicitous i'm not suggesting for one moment that she was either lying or duplicitous what i'm really seeking to get at is why you thought it was appropriate that janice ray should play any part at all
00:46:21 janice ray should play any part at all in the judgment of her own work um i didn't view it in that context um i can see i can understand how you may take that view but we're asking for the tmo to provide information on their
00:46:33 tmo to provide information on their uh performance um and what has happened over the previous six months and this is a document setting out the scrutiny committee what has taken place did you appreciate that there's a distinction between providing
00:46:44 distinction between providing information to you so that you could judge
00:46:46 judge their performance and and them providing you
00:46:50 you with their own judgment of their performance yes i can understand that but i don't think there's really anything
00:46:55 anything uh uh i think for the the tmo working with uh celia and amanda to say that they had made significant progress um if they hadn't made significant progress and we had found that actually nothing had changed then that
00:47:07 nothing had changed then that that statement wouldn't have been in there that would have been challenged by celia in the drafting did you have any personal oversight of these matters uh not personally no because i didn't go
00:47:18 uh not personally no because i didn't go down into that level of detail bearing in mind that the nature of my job was quite often very general in terms of its view of what was taking place
00:47:26 place at the tma what was rbkc's oversight of the progress with fra recommendations at this stage i wasn't involved in the progress uh in
00:47:39 i wasn't involved in the progress uh in the oversight of the progress against fire risk assessments and that's really a question that i suggest you ask amanda johnson right um can we go to
00:47:51 right um can we go to three six four rbk403649 please
00:47:55 um this is the 2014-15
00:48:01 annual review so similar format again 9th of july 2015 and if we go down to page 3 we will see again
00:48:13 page 3 we will see again your name director of housing again i'm going to assume unless you tell me otherwise that although you didn't draft it you would have satisfied yourself that it was appropriate and accurate to say your name uh and again
00:48:25 name uh and again we see conclusions bottom of page two over to page three
00:48:32 first part of paragraph 3.1 the tma's performance it's a foot of page two tma's performance across a range of housing service
00:48:39 service areas has been very good this year you see that yes uh can we please go to page 13 in this document paragraph 3.7
00:48:52 under the annual review which starts in fact on
00:48:55 fact on page four paragraph 3.7 health and safety and again we've got the same rubric on the left hand side
00:49:03 hand side that we've seen for the previous year and on the right-hand side we have a lengthy dissertation on the health and safety action plan
00:49:14 safety action plan it says that's been introduced with a to facilitate monitoring of compliance with legislation and good practice by the kctmo h and s committee progress has been noted with and then
00:49:26 progress has been noted with and then there are a number long large number of bullet points the
00:49:32 second of which says the program of fire risk assessments and reviews required by the regulatory reform fire safety order is ongoing the recommendations of the best practice
00:49:43 recommendations of the best practice guidance have been adopted with regard to frequency the closest scrutiny of the fire safety issues on the estates investigation of fires false fire alarms etc
00:49:54 etc uh lfb of prioritized familiarization visits
00:49:58 visits and then closely liaison with lfb with regard to works at grenfell tower local operational crews regularly attend the block
00:50:05 block and liaise with the contractors ridings on progress of works impact on firefighting etc and then underneath that work activity and workplace risk assessments have been reviewed
00:50:16 reviewed and updated and it goes on in that vein in relation to other subordinate matters
00:50:24 i i've perhaps shown you too much of that that invites an answer to this question but looking at what you've seen does this mean that the health and safety action plan facilitated our bkc monitoring the tmo
00:50:35 facilitated our bkc monitoring the tmo health and safety committee or did it refer to the tmo health and safety committee monitoring the compliance of the tmo the latter the latter
00:50:49 the latter the latter so again this is tmos a committee within the tma monitoring its own compliance yes did
00:50:59 yes did the tmos health and safety committee report to you or perhaps celia chaliscan or amanda johnson
00:51:05 johnson with their findings on compliance and good practice um i don't know you'd have to ask amanda johnson or c charles can well you say i'd have to ask them
00:51:16 them do i do i take it from your not knowing that that
00:51:20 that that they didn't otherwise you'd you would say yes i'm saying i don't know well you don't you don't know you don't remember um could you ask me the question again just
00:51:31 could you ask me the question again just yes
00:51:32 yes did the health and say did the tmo health and safety committee report to you with their findings on compliance no they did not
00:51:43 do you know whether they reported to celia chaliskan or amanda johnson no they did not they reported into the tmo board
00:51:53 and did anyone on the tmo board report to celia
00:51:56 to celia chaliscan or amanda johnson no they did not
00:52:00 not the tmo board as i've just explained before was made up of i believe 15 members
00:52:05 members of which four rbkc nominees three were independents and the restaurant made up a mixture of tenant and leaseholders yes did the
00:52:17 yes did the rbkc nominees on the tma board report to anybody in your 120 member staff group no they did not have a formal reporting relationship between
00:52:30 a formal reporting relationship between myself or with amanda johnson or silly chalice gun we would meet on occasion with
00:52:34 with uh the rbkc nominees two of them were counsellors uh one from the minority party and one from the majority party and then two were independents who rbkc
00:52:46 and then two were independents who rbkc interviewed to put forward as their nominations to the board
00:52:50 the board it used to be four councillors who sat on the tmo board but we changed that in 2009 after the improvement plan was introduced in order to strengthen the
00:53:01 introduced in order to strengthen the tmo board
00:53:02 tmo board and just just to be clear the rbkc nominees who sat on the tmo board were not expected to have open lines of communication with rbkc in respect to tma business
00:53:14 rbkc in respect to tma business they weren't expected to report to us on a regular basis because they're a director of a company as a board and we're expected to comply with the codes of governance under that particular yes regime yes if they had any areas of
00:53:26 yes regime yes if they had any areas of concern
00:53:27 concern and on occasions we in the especially in the early days of us putting independence on the board they would come or they would contact me or they would contact the cabinet member and express those
00:53:39 the cabinet member and express those concerns but during this time in terms of 2014-15 i don't remember the independence that sat on the
00:53:46 on the the tmo uh the rbkc nominees to the tmo board
00:53:50 board expressing any particular concerns to me they would be expected under their duties as a director of a company on a board
00:53:57 board to exercise their correct procedures in order to
00:54:00 order to ensure that they ensure the good functioning of that company now going back to this document when you wrote your conclusions or rather when you approve the conclusions that had been written
00:54:11 been written in the report did you take what i've just read to you here on page 13 under paragraph 3.7.1 at face value yes i did if i felt
00:54:22 at face value yes i did if i felt however if i on review of this report if i felt any of it based on the information that i had about the tmo was not accurate or correct or there was anything in here which i wasn't happy about then i would
00:54:34 which i wasn't happy about then i would go back to celia and amanda and query that but in in this case in terms of the information that is provided here i took it on face value as being correct so can we take it from that that you at
00:54:47 so can we take it from that that you at least
00:54:48 least were never told that there were significant backlogs still being cleared down particularly in relation to responsive repairs oh in responsive repairs um
00:55:01 oh in responsive repairs um which is different to health and safety so
00:55:04 so well all right um it may or may not be depending on whether those responsive repairs are fra well i would there's responsive repairs i would expect the tmo if they had
00:55:15 i would expect the tmo if they had discussed with me um the difference between um the fra actions and responsive repairs although they could fall under the same banner
00:55:24 banner you would expect to divide those two out i'm not sure in the timeline really where um i suspect uh uh repairs direct was in place by
00:55:36 uh uh repairs direct was in place by this time
00:55:37 this time um so uh they i think they came in in 2011 i can't remember i'm sure you have the documentation to to set it out um but um i certainly was aware of
00:55:47 aware of backlogs of repairs during the time that both morrisons managed the contract um there was a further contracting name i uh forget um and then
00:55:59 uh forget um and then uh because of the uh very difficult very difficult getting those external contractors to undertake the responsive repair service um in a way in which the tmo wanted to
00:56:11 um in a way in which the tmo wanted to manage it it was certainly brought to my attention that was extremely difficult which helped inform the decision for the tmo to set up repairs direct right with its own board leaving aside responsive repairs which i can see you
00:56:23 responsive repairs which i can see you have a lot of a lot to say about did anybody tell you at this stage that there were significant backlogs being cleared down um i don't remember to be honest even though some of those may have been high risk no one said to you there are
00:56:34 high risk no one said to you there are uh high-risk fra items that are still yet to be cleared down um i don't remember somebody saying that to me specifically now if we go back to your statement please uh
00:56:46 please uh page 25 let's look together at paragraph 100 there um it's a long paragraph
00:56:53 paragraph in it you refer to paragraph 3.6 uh of the um 2015 2016 tma performance agreement
00:57:07 2015 2016 tma performance agreement uh and uh that's three or four fifths of the way through the paragraph halfway down your screen let's look at that document that is rbk50589
00:57:25 uh and it accompanies uh and this is page one uh and this is part of the 2016 july 2016 report uh by director of housing and town clerk
00:57:38 uh by director of housing and town clerk and the executive director of finance and once again page three your name once again
00:57:43 again is it right same process by which it came to be produced yes and page four we can see again and uh by now familiar appendix one this is the tma annual review for 2015
00:57:55 this is the tma annual review for 2015 to 16.
00:57:56 to 16. can we go to page 29 please in that
00:58:02 and page 29 you will see uh under health and safety which is now 3.6
00:58:13 3.6 same rubric on the left and on the right the health and safety action plan will be reviewed and extended to incorporate any new areas where monitoring of compliance with legislation and good practices required specifically
00:58:25 specifically and in the third bullet point down it says the programme of fire risk assessments and reviews to continue and more work to ensure actions and recommendations from these are consistently completed in
00:58:37 from these are consistently completed in a timely manner were you provided with any information about what was being done about actions needed to address issues in the
00:58:45 in the fras um i wasn't but it would have been discussed with amanda johnson and celia chaliskan right and so
00:58:57 right and so again the same applies that this would have been something between them and you didn't have any oversight of any of the details i didn't have oversight of the detail but if um on
00:59:09 but if um on amanda johnson's regular meetings monthly meetings with the tmo which had an agenda she had felt sufficient concern about any of the items that were raised with
00:59:20 items that were raised with her then she would have brought that to my attention but i don't remember this being
00:59:24 being an item that was specifically raised with me right i'm going to turn next to the question of audits before i do um you raised earlier with me the fact that you weren't sure whether the salvos report
00:59:37 weren't sure whether the salvos report was referred to in the 2009 and 10 health and safety audit let me show you that it's rbk30
00:59:55 there it is it's the final draft of the audit report dated june 2010 circulated in draft to janice ray and the final draft also circulated to robert black uh and
01:00:07 circulated to robert black uh and underneath that you'll see both pam sedgwick
01:00:10 sedgwick and you you see that now it's it's a long document and i don't want to ask you to read it all um but um there it is
01:00:23 um but um there it is i i take it the answer this is that you don't remember seeing this particular document at the time but you you would have seen it correct in the sense that you can't think of a reason why you wouldn't correct right uh we have not been able
01:00:34 correct right uh we have not been able to find
01:00:35 to find any reference in that document to the salvus report uh would you you wouldn't quarrel with that would you um no no can i ask you then
01:00:47 um no no can i ask you then about audits can i ask you to go please to rbk3030149
01:00:55 this is your report on tma performance for
01:00:58 for 2011 to 2012. again and i think we've seen this before but uh because i showed you the conclusions at the foot of page two and your name at
01:01:10 at the foot of page two and your name at the foot of page three and appendix one starts on page five can we go in that please to page 21 where we can see the tmo performance agreement which is what i want to ask
01:01:21 agreement which is what i want to ask you about
01:01:22 you about appendix ii it starts on page 21 as you can see and uh
01:01:32 the um if you go please to the next page page 22 you can see that the audits are there set out and the draft audit program for the following year
01:01:44 following year and uh you you can see what's um what's set out
01:01:48 set out service area click key client manager and audit
01:01:54 was this a list of internal tmo audits or was it a list of audits to be performed by rbkc
01:02:04 um it was a list of audits to be undertaken as i understand it by rbkc right i see uh who oversaw
01:02:17 uh who oversaw those audits being completed um well in terms of the tmo then i it's the name of the client on the list there and in terms of rbkc then it would have
01:02:29 and in terms of rbkc then it would have been the audit manager for rbkc so anthony parks and rupa bola uh so anthony parks is a uh andrew ebola are both
01:02:42 uh andrew ebola are both members of the tmo yes that's what i yes yes what i thought so key client says anthony parks why is he a key client if he's the tmo uh because he
01:02:53 uh because he i'm presumably would have been a client of rbkc audit i see what you mean right so he was the audit client for rbc rbkc's audit of the tmo
01:03:06 rbkc's audit of the tmo where lbkc was the client yes yes i follow
01:03:09 follow i think um uh would you read these results
01:03:14 results when they came in yes i would uh now we can see
01:03:17 can see under the heading hr and organizational development uh towards the bottom of the page a box with fire risk assessments in it um who carried out the fire risk
01:03:31 in it um who carried out the fire risk assessment audit um i don't know unless i saw the copy of the report right well it says key client lornette pemberton
01:03:39 pemberton but no manager what was lawnette pemberton's role i don't remember she was a member of the tmo i'm not sure what her job was right
01:03:52 again so she's the audit client by rbkc in respect of fire risk assessments yes so as i said um uh the tmo
01:04:03 yes so as i said um uh the tmo commissioned rbkc audit as though rbkc audit could be like any of the uh the big four audit companies who people get in to do audits whether that be
01:04:14 get in to do audits whether that be uh instant young or bdo the tmo commissioned rbkc audit to do that function for them yes did you normally then read the final or draft rbkc
01:04:26 final or draft rbkc audit reports for fire risk assessments um i read the audit that um rb casey audit undertook for the tmo in their
01:04:36 their uh their final i wouldn't have read the draft i would have read the final right all right the fight but does that tell us that you would have read rbkc's audit of the tmos uh fire risk assessments yes i probably
01:04:49 uh fire risk assessments yes i probably would yes i see and what sort of information would would that audit that you would have read have contained um uh well it would depend on the terms of
01:05:01 uh well it would depend on the terms of reference for the audit
01:05:05 so that would be agreed between the tmo and rbc audit you read them what sort of information did you do you remember seeing in there um well it's probably been five years since i read an audit um
01:05:16 since i read an audit um by rbc of the tmo so depending on the terms of reference then it would cover um yeah the how the how it was run um
01:05:27 yeah the how the how it was run um and it would look at particular areas of that um of that service so um whether it was done in a timely manner whether it met expectations whether it was meeting its performance indicators
01:05:39 its performance indicators and where there were any areas that it it wasn't
01:05:43 it wasn't it wasn't meeting that but audits can be quite broadly or quite tightly defined depending on how the scope of the audit is is set out so you could have an audit of a of a building refurbishment for example
01:05:56 of a building refurbishment for example but it could only look at one element of that building refurbishment i.e the budget management of it it might not necessarily look at the program so it really depends on how tightly the scope is well let's just think in this stage
01:06:06 stage i'm showing you this because it's part of uh
01:06:09 of uh appendix 2 which is the performance agreement for 2012 2013 which contains what is a draft audit program so this is only a draft and it has fire risk assessments in it
01:06:21 and it has fire risk assessments in it do you know whether in fact there was a final
01:06:24 final audit done by our bkc in respect of fire risk assessments for the tma i don't recollect i'm afraid you don't
01:06:33 you don't do you remember in any other year reading a final audit done by our bkc in respect of fire risk assessments i don't recollect but as with all audit programs that you would probably do an
01:06:45 programs that you would probably do an audit
01:06:46 audit of a particular area once every three years in a cycle so it wouldn't be the customer practice in my experience that audits were undertaken of the same
01:06:57 that audits were undertaken of the same service every year they would be undertaken in a cycle so i i i think i'm right in saying that we've never seen an audit report or audit for fire risk assessments ever done by rbkc
01:07:10 assessments ever done by rbkc for the tmo that doesn't surprise you does it um to be honest with you i don't remember you know sort of uh i read a lot of audit reports uh
01:07:21 i read a lot of audit reports uh undertaken by rbkc of the tmo um and i don't recollect whether fire risk assessments was one of them or not right given that we can see in this document which i take you're familiar
01:07:32 document which i take you're familiar with because it accompanied your report your 2012 report um
01:07:39 that there was going to be at least in draft in this draft a a fire risk assessment audit do you know why one was never carried out uh no i don't
01:07:49 i don't you know who would have made the decision whether or not it should be carried out uh that decision would have been made by uh between uh the tmo and our bkc so they would have
01:08:00 have reviewed the audits that were required for that year and uh there would have been a discussion about what fell in and fell out of the audit program and that would have been agreed between the client and the tmo yes the client
01:08:12 the client and the tmo yes the client and the tmo i mean you mean rbkc i mean rbkc audit and the tmo in terms of their audit program that would have been reported through their audit committee into their board who are
01:08:23 audit committee into their board who are the tmo
01:08:24 the tmo sorry who who at rbkc let's begin with them
01:08:28 them who at rbkc made the decision that although the draft audit program said fire risk assessments there wouldn't be one in the end it
01:08:39 there wouldn't be one in the end it wouldn't have been anybody in the housing department it would have been uh because the housing department did not set the audit plan with the tmo and it would have been a discussion held between rbkc audit
01:08:50 between rbkc audit and the tmo but rbkc audit reports to whom
01:08:55 whom uh in 2012 i couldn't tell you um it was as part of a uh a separate department i think probably that was made up was probably sat in the finance
01:09:06 sat in the finance overall finance team but i couldn't swear to it did rbkc audit when deciding on the scope of audit for any particular year speak to anybody in your department or departments
01:09:17 departments uh i don't know i'm not aware that they did did you ever talk to anybody in the audit group or on the audit um committee uh about what should or shouldn't be
01:09:29 uh about what should or shouldn't be included in their order no i did not did anybody who reported to you have any such discussions to your knowledge i don't believe they did know right
01:09:40 i don't believe they did know right so i'm what i'm hearing is that the rbkc audit group or audit team decided for themselves what should be the subject of audit without consulting at least in respect to fire assessment
01:09:51 at least in respect to fire assessment risk assessments you yes because they were an independent they were an independent organization who would then work with their auditors to review what needed to be in their audit program
01:10:02 audit program which is entirely in keeping with any organization managing a housing service how do you know how they would have made their decision whether or not to include or exclude something from the scope of their audits
01:10:13 something from the scope of their audits without talking to the relevant rbkc uh department well they wouldn't need to talk to me they would need to have a look at their you would
01:10:23 you would when looking at your audit program you have a look at areas based on what you think is high risk or what you think deserves external scrutiny because you uh because you're wanting to get an
01:10:35 uh because you're wanting to get an audit input on it or you're looking at areas which haven't been audited for some considerable period of time and then seeking to understand if there's been any significant changes in the way that particular service is run
01:10:47 the way that particular service is run and then and then you're arriving at a decision
01:10:50 decision agreed between uh uh mr black's executive team i have no doubt um about what was appropriate to have in terms of that audit plan can we look please at rbk4050313
01:11:04 can we look please at rbk4050313 this is an internal audit of the tmos fire risk management system in 2013 um it looks from the face of it that it is an rbkc
01:11:17 from the face of it that it is an rbkc document is that right or is it a tmo document i mean it's an or an uh
01:11:22 or an uh a kct um an rbkc um audit document that would that they that rbkc had altered for the tmo so now where the
01:11:33 where the where the uh holder of that sits um uh once you undertake an audit for an organization then it becomes that organization's audit and you own it but you have still
01:11:44 audit and you own it but you have still authored it well i i was going to ask you because we can see notwithstanding the front page at the very top of the front page it says tmo health and safety internal audit report 2012 to 2013.
01:11:57 internal audit report 2012 to 2013. so what do you take from that was it internal to tmo or was it about the tma but internal to rbkc
01:12:08 about the tma but internal to rbkc um it is i take it that that is a report that
01:12:11 that rbkc audit had undertaken for the tmo um and so the tmo hadn't audited themselves this is as they have badged an internal audit report rather than you can have external
01:12:23 rather than you can have external auditors come in and do audits of your say for example
01:12:30 if you are looking at risk you might just
01:12:35 just broadly risk in the markets if you were looking to borrow money then you would look at uh external auditors who could provide that service for you
01:12:42 for you but if you're if you're badging it as an internal order it's a phrase to me about your services internally oh i see i think i see um let's see how we go with this
01:12:53 um let's see how we go with this document then um we can see from the first page that the final version was circulated to you and robert black yes if that's what it says it was well it does say that can we take it
01:13:04 it does say that can we take it that is what happened yes right now i take it also from that answer that you don't recall receiving this document specifically uh i don't i don't recall receiving uh
01:13:17 uh i don't i don't recall receiving uh this audit specifically in april 2013 but if it was circulated to me i would have received it yes um were you involved in commissioning the tmo health and safety
01:13:28 commissioning the tmo health and safety audits
01:13:30 audits no
01:13:33 was this audit separate from the annual audit
01:13:37 audit that was suggested in draft that we saw remember to go on the last document that the fra assessment audit this is a different thing is it uh it may well have been that there was
01:13:50 uh it may well have been that there was that draft list of audits but then actually what took place was something different
01:13:56 different why would the final version of this have been forwarded to you in particular because i received all uh the audits that were undertaken of tmo services i see uh
01:14:10 i see uh can we look at the executive summary then on page four
01:14:19 it starts on page three but it what i want to ask you about is on page four
01:14:30 if you look at paragraph nine areas where identified where controls can be improved three high priority recommendations were made as follows
01:14:41 made as follows and then the third one the third bullet point is all portable firefighting equipment should be regularly inspected by the appointed contractor any faulty equipment identified replaced on a prompt basis
01:14:53 and then uh underneath that a number of medium
01:14:59 medium priority recommendations uh and the first one of which is all high priority remedial work identified as part of the annual health and safety inspection check should be followed up by the health and safety
01:15:10 followed up by the health and safety team to ensure that it's undertaken on a prompt basis um just pausing there first of all looking at the high priority ones i've just shown you did you note that um did you note those those categories
01:15:23 um did you note those those categories yes i would have done
01:15:27 and also you would have noted the five medium priority recommendations as well i imagine
01:15:31 i imagine yes then if we look at page paragraph eleven at the foot of page four it says as a result of the audit review alternate internal audit can give
01:15:42 alternate internal audit can give limited assurance in bold that adequate controls and processes are in place for health and safety at the tmo whilst there is a basically sound system there are weaknesses which put some of the system objectives at risk
01:15:54 the system objectives at risk taking into account the assurance level given above and the significance of the system we are of the opinion that the system presents a medium risk to the organization achieving its overall
01:16:05 overall service objectives did it concern you that the audit could only give a limited assurance
01:16:12 assurance um it would have done and then that would have been raised with amanda johnson who would have discussed that with colleagues at the tmo through monthly meetings
01:16:22 meetings um and i believe for a limited assurance report
01:16:25 report um it probably would have gone and i would have to check this to be honest with you
01:16:29 with you that it may well have been it would have been raised well it definitely would have been raised at the tmo board because they had an
01:16:36 an audit and risk committee and then that would have been reported into their board
01:16:40 board and then if it was limited assurance to the tmo it may well have gone to the council's audit committee but i'm afraid i'd have to check that you you would have noticed then had you
01:16:51 you you would have noticed then had you looked at the five medium priority recommendations that the final one the fifth was this appropriate performance indicators relating to health and safety inspections should be developed by
01:17:03 inspections should be developed by management
01:17:06 having noted that what steps do you remember taking yourself to put that in place put that development in place um that's not for me to do that that's for the tmo to do that yes what steps did you take
01:17:18 to do that yes what steps did you take to scrutinize or oversee the tmos doing that so the amanda johnson would have discussed that with the tmo as part of her monthly update
01:17:29 update and i would have definitely spoken to robert black at one of our monthly meetings
01:17:32 meetings which had not minuted about the outcome of the audit reports and what the tmo were doing and in fact i probably wouldn't have needed to speak to him about it because he would have raised that in our meetings
01:17:43 raised that in our meetings about how the tmo were looking to to pull that together so in terms of appropriate performance indicators relating to health and safety um it was my expectation then that the health and safety committee that the tmo
01:17:55 health and safety committee that the tmo had set up would address that point can we please go to section 8 of this document which starts on page 18.
01:18:10 and on that page you can see uh paragraph eight or section eight fire safety
01:18:15 safety you see that yes uh and uh if you turn the page please to paragraph 8.3 on page 19
01:18:23 19 you can see that the report says audit examined three via risk assessment reports as follows daca house january 2013 31 danvers street november
01:18:34 january 2013 31 danvers street november 2012
01:18:35 2012 downing house april 2012. the the properties that are listed there um do you know how they were selected no uh of course none of them are
01:18:46 no uh of course none of them are grenfell tower another is grandfield tower were you aware that in reviewing just three fire risk assessments that this audit didn't purport to be a comprehensive review
01:18:57 comprehensive review of the tmos fire risk management system uh that would have been a decision for antenna auditors to take right you don't you don't know how they selected those three fire risk assessments
01:19:08 assessments i don't know how they selected them and i don't know upon which bases they decided
01:19:12 decided what a uh a comprehensive review of fire as risk assessments was did you did you ask did you know that
01:19:21 did you ever ask or investigate the possibility of any comprehensive review of tma's fire risk assessments processes being carried out no i did not why is that um uh i read the audit report and would
01:19:33 uh i read the audit report and would have seen that they had done that and then
01:19:35 then i knew that the tmo would take action against that but it did not for me set flags raising that i should request something signif more significant
01:19:47 did you have any advice available to you to tell you that these three properties were a fairly representative sample for the purposes of the audit no but you've assumed that the auditors
01:20:00 no but you've assumed that the auditors would have satisfied themselves that these were a fairly representative sample
01:20:05 sample i would assumed that audit in terms of how they undertake their job would be qualified auditors who would seek to reassure themselves that they
01:20:16 seek to reassure themselves that they undertook
01:20:16 undertook their job in a way that was commensurate with their profession so uh so yes i would presume that right yes all right and can we look at section 9 then at page 20 please
01:20:28 9 then at page 20 please this is entitled management information and budgetary control
01:20:34 and if we go please to page 20 paragraph 9.4 over the page 20 page 21
01:20:45 over the page 20 page 21 uh it says there uh in the absence of a full range of performance indicators for health and safety specific areas there's a risk that management cannot monitor performance levels for these areas
01:20:56 performance levels for these areas and take appropriate corrective action where poor or inadequate performance levels are identified recommendation and you can see that in bold
01:21:08 appropriate performance indicators relating to health and safety inspections should be developed by management this ensures that inspections for um it can be monitored and any performance this is identified for
01:21:19 performance this is identified for appropriate corrective action to be taken
01:21:21 taken where performance does not meet expectations i'm assuming you read that and understood it when you saw it yes yes did you follow up with the tmo on this
01:21:32 did you follow up with the tmo on this recommendation i don't remember personally following up on this recommendation but in terms of audit it would be my understanding that the tmo would receive the audit report
01:21:43 the tmo would receive the audit report and then put together a plan which addressed
01:21:46 addressed the recommendations set out in the audit report and then in case of limited assurance a further audit report would probably be undertaken six months later which would seek to
01:21:57 seek to uh would seek to find out whether those audit recommendations had been undertaken so you say that the tmo would receive the order report and then put together a plan
01:22:06 plan yes was it not rbkc's role to make sure that the tmo did that rather than just leaving it to them to do it um no we would assume that the tmo as an
01:22:17 um no we would assume that the tmo as an organization uh with the correct uh structure in place would take the audit recommendations and uh and put together a plan and we would then see evidence of the
01:22:29 we would then see evidence of the follow-up audit report that had taken place to see that it would um that the actions had been undertaken
01:22:37 well that was my question really you say um
01:22:40 um you you say we would then see evidence of the follow-up audit report that had taken place was that the way in which you
01:22:47 which you as rbkc sought to make sure that this recommendation was undertaken put into practice by the tma
01:22:55 tma um so that was one element amanda johnson had monthly meetings with the tmo to discuss performance where key performance indicators were discussed and there was a standard agenda and i also
01:23:08 there was a standard agenda and i also saw minutes of the board meetings where i knew
01:23:11 i knew that audit and there was an audit and risk committee but i didn't see minutes of those unless they were included in the board papers i can't remember and items relating to
01:23:22 i can't remember and items relating to health and safety would be addressed by the board and i would be able to see evidence of the fact that those had been addressed at board level with the at the tmo right and would the same go for what is indicated in the management
01:23:34 what is indicated in the management response just below that where it says it's been acknowledged that there would it would be beneficial for the tmo to supplement this with meaningful health and safety key performance indicators which could be monitored regularly throughout the year
01:23:47 throughout the year yes yeah yes
01:23:52 were you aware that a suite of performance indicators including fire safety
01:23:57 safety specifically were not actually introduced by the tmo until january 2016.
01:24:03 2016. uh no no i wasn't aware that there was a a suite of those suite of kpis but they did introduce uh performance uh they did introduce more uh performance indicators for
01:24:15 more uh performance indicators for health and safety um i'm absolutely sure that they wasn't left for another three years before they were introduced right uh well a follow-up you remember that there was a follow-up
01:24:26 you remember that there was a follow-up audit you referred to follow-up yes there was one in fact for this i'm sure that's done in december 2013. and let's just look at that
01:24:36 rbk50320
01:24:40 you say you're sure there was when we look at it we we see that there it is um it's not actually circulated to you in draft or
01:24:51 circulated to you in draft or final as you see
01:24:57 uh it appears only to go to tmo people why is that i don't know is that was that odd
01:25:08 i don't know is that was that odd i mean would you not have expected to see a follow-up audit um i would have expected to uh all audit reports were sent to me uh as a matter of course
01:25:18 of course um and i'm not sure why a follow-up audit was not sent to me as well you see you said earlier on just a moment ago that the tmo you would have expected to take the audit recommendations put
01:25:30 take the audit recommendations put together a plan and then you would see evidence of the follow-up audit report had taken place to see that it
01:25:36 it that the actions have been undertaken and that's one of the ways in which the other which rbkc kept tabs on tmos doing what the audit said they should do do you see yes
01:25:47 do you see yes now my question is if that's the case why
01:25:51 why are you not circulated with this document i don't know you'd have to ask rbkc audit right well let me ask you did you ever notice
01:26:02 well let me ask you did you ever notice that notwithstanding uh the um the recommendations and the management's response in the previous document uh which we've seen that you never actually
01:26:13 which we've seen that you never actually got a follow-up audit um i didn't in this instance i i you didn't but you didn't did you not notice did you not ask yourself i wonder where the follow-up audit is uh clearly i didn't notice six months
01:26:25 uh clearly i didn't notice six months later that i hadn't received a follow-up audit report so in an ideal world i would have diarised it that i was expecting to see an audit report
01:26:33 report some months later but i didn't and so i didn't follow it up but was it not important for you to make sure
01:26:39 sure that you could buy the follow-up audit approach
01:26:43 approach make sure that the tmo was doing what the auditors said they should do yes clearly and in this instance i haven't received the report and uh um and i haven't remembered to uh to chase it up
01:26:56 to chase it up did you actually notice that you hadn't had the follow-up report do you remember i don't remember to be on it well clearly i
01:27:01 clearly i uh if i had i would have chased it up so clearly i i didn't know i didn't remember right um
01:27:15 you didn't receive it you didn't read it is today the first time you've ever seen this document um i don't know um i can only look at the front page well i may have seen it in the course of events but i
01:27:26 events but i um well let's just look at page two then uh
01:27:29 uh see if i can help you a bit more it says in uh
01:27:34 in uh on the first page of paragraph one in accordance with our protocol to review the implementation of limited assurance audits we've performed a follow-up audit of our april 2013 report on health and safety at tmo
01:27:45 on health and safety at tmo now just pausing there it looks from that as if the the tmo understood or the auditors understood that they would only produce a follow-up audit where there was a limited assurance uh audit is that is that correct
01:27:56 audit is that is that correct yes that would be correct right but that still doesn't explain why you didn't see this document that's correct no and then you can see paragraph two is the reference to the internal audit producing a limited assurance and then
01:28:07 producing a limited assurance and then in this follow-up audit we report that satisfactory progress has been made with the implementation of the recommendations the current status of each recommendation is given in more detail in appendix one to this report and that paragraph five
01:28:19 to this report and that paragraph five you can you see that they they say that we now provide a satisfactory assurance with medium risk and having shown you that when was the first time you think you saw this document
01:28:30 time you think you saw this document i think this may have been the first time i've seen this uh so you wouldn't and i'll show you 20 paragraph 23 sorry page 23 if i if i
01:28:50 i'm so sorry that's a i don't need to show you that and indeed can't because there is no page 23 in this document um did anybody
01:29:00 record to you reports to you that there had been an upgrade from limited
01:29:07 limited to satisfactory at this time um i don't remember in december of 2013 um anybody saying to me that there had been an upgrade in the audit but it would have been noted in the uh
01:29:19 but it would have been noted in the uh six monthly or annual performance report now can i then turn please to the notice of deficiency uh which the lfb provided on well served on the
01:29:31 provided on well served on the uh in november 2016 in relation to grenfell tower you you deal with this at paragraph 131 of your statement your first statement can we go to that please at page 34.
01:29:49 and you say there the tmo notified me of the deficiency notice by email the tma sought to rectify these issues and measures were in the process of being undertaken that had been highlighted to them
01:30:01 highlighted to them my understanding is that they had informed the lfb uh when did the tmo notify you by email do you think
01:30:14 uh by email of receipt of the deficiency notice
01:30:17 notice yes um i don't know but uh the uh on on occasion uh uh i'll be um lfb would sometimes send
01:30:29 uh i'll be um lfb would sometimes send the deficiency notices to the uh tmo and rbkc and sometimes they would just send them to rbkc and sometimes they just send them to the tmo because i think
01:30:40 tmo because i think like most people found they found it difficult to really understand what the role of rbkc and tmo was it was it was a non-standard uh in terms of whether you transferred
01:30:51 uh in terms of whether you transferred your stock and had a housing association where you had an alamo so on occasions uh they came to different organizations in this case clearly the deficiency notice has gone straight to the tmo
01:31:02 straight to the tmo and
01:31:05 i knew about it but i can't remember an exact detail when i uh when i received that email right you talk in that answer of deficiency notices because i asked you about deficiency notices would the same apply to enforcement
01:31:16 would the same apply to enforcement notices yes
01:31:21 can we please look at paragraph 130 of your statement just above where we've been looking and you say
01:31:30 you say in that paragraph in the third from bottom line councillors would have no involvement in managing the response to a deficiency notice
01:31:42 the response to a deficiency notice i would have let the cabinet member know about a deficiency notice and any action taken in respect of it as a matter of course now what you say there relates to counsellors was the same also the case
01:31:54 counsellors was the same also the case for council officers or employees
01:32:00 i'm sorry i don't really understand your question well
01:32:04 you say councillors would have no involvement in managing the response to a deficiency notice what about officers or employees um probably not because the items that the lfb would be listed would be the
01:32:16 the lfb would be listed would be the items that were would be items that the tmo were responsible for
01:32:30 right but in a case where a deficiency notice came to rbkc you say councillors would have no involvement
01:32:41 involvement is the same also true of our bkc staff um i think we're slightly talking across purposes because i'm talking about very practical things about meeting the requirements of the deficiency notice like moving bikes out
01:32:54 deficiency notice like moving bikes out of hallways and electric wheelchairs and i believe you're trying to say to me in terms of monitoring of the deficiency notice am i correct no um well let's look at your statement it says councillors would have no
01:33:06 says councillors would have no involvement in managing the response to a deficiency notice you refer to counsellors my question is whether that went wider but it also include our bkc staff yes i can say lbkc staff
01:33:18 our bkc staff yes i can say lbkc staff would not in the normal course of events have any involvement in the response to the deficiency notice yes and a little bit above that you say if the tmo required additional finance
01:33:29 if the tmo required additional finance in order to be able to comply with the deficiency notice depending on the scope and cost of the work usually it would be managed within the existing budget provision if not it would be referred to cabinet for extra funding was work in respect of
01:33:41 for extra funding was work in respect of any item
01:33:42 any item in the november deficiency notice the 2016 deficiency notice referred to cabinet for extra funding not to my knowledge no do you know how often
01:33:53 often the tmo sought additional funding in order to comply with lfb deficiency notices i can't tell you off the top of my head now but i uh i don't believe um
01:34:05 but i uh i don't believe um i can't i can't remember an instance of the tmo coming to the council and asking for
01:34:12 for additional funds that would require a cabinet decision is that also true in respect of funding fra actions more generally
01:34:22 if you were looking at the budget for the following year then we would hopefully make provision within that budget looking at the annual programme in terms of the capital and revenue budget to make sufficient
01:34:34 revenue budget to make sufficient uh submission sufficient funds available for
01:34:37 for uh fra actions as they were uh projected um and if um if something came up in in in the year that was unexpected then
01:34:48 in in the year that was unexpected then we had quarterly review meetings quarterly reports undertaken on the monitoring of the capital and revenue programme
01:34:55 programme in order to be able to understand how the tmo were performing against that budget
01:34:59 budget and if there needed to be any movement of budget within that then it would be dealt with that on those occasions
01:35:07 yes i understand going back then to where you say if the tma required additional finance in order to be able to comply with the deficiency notice usually it would be managed within the existing budget provision was there ever
01:35:19 existing budget provision was there ever an occasion to your knowledge when the tmo did come asking for additional finance in order to be able to comply with the deficiency notice
01:35:26 notice only on the occasion uh from recollection when they received uh a notice about a dare tower uh no they didn't need additional i don't believe they did need additional funding
01:35:38 believe they did need additional funding um as a result of a dare tower so i believe that was managed within uh uh the existing budget provision so what event are you referring to there in that sentence
01:35:50 that sentence i'm not referring to any particular event i'm just making a general comment well you say if the we've read it now twice
01:35:58 twice uh you say if the tmo required additional finance etc usually it would be managed within the existing budget provision i'm really just asking you to provide me with an instance in which the tmo required such
01:36:09 instance in which the tmo required such additional finance such that it was managed within the existing budget provision was there such an occasion i can't think of one
01:36:18 of one why why were you able or how are you able to write that sentence well i must say i read this as you describing the system is that right yes yeah i'm making a general description of the of how it worked
01:36:29 description of the of how it worked very well this is german is that a convenient moment i think it is actually mr miller yes thank you very much we're going to have a break now mr olson we'll come back at 25 to 4
01:36:38 25 to 4 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room all right thank you very much
01:36:56 25 to 4 then please
01:37:55 [Music]
01:45:31 [Applause]
01:49:28 [Applause]
01:50:12 [Music]
01:51:10 [Music]
01:53:46 [Applause]
01:53:50 [Music]
01:54:07 [Music]
01:56:29 do you ask ms johnson to come back in
01:56:40 please
01:56:54 alright mrs johnson yes when you're ready yes mr chairman mr johnson can i ask you please to go to your first witness statement and look at um paragraph 127
01:57:07 which is at page 33. [Music]
01:57:11 [Music] and this lies under the heading deficiency notice relating to grenfell tower
01:57:16 tower do you say a deficiency notice was issued by lfb in november 2016 with compliance due by 18th may 2017 the nfb undertook an inspection of grenfell tower in november 2016
01:57:28 grenfell tower in november 2016 at which point a deficiency notice was served based on their observations at the time
01:57:33 the time lj46 these were and then you set out five of them you see that there um did the tma provide you with details of any actions that it intended to provide to it intended to take or intended to be
01:57:45 it intended to take or intended to be taken
01:57:46 taken with any with these breaches to remedy them
01:57:49 them um i i don't remember a conversation uh in between november 2016 and uh when there was response in may 2018
01:58:01 uh when there was response in may 2018 but i uh i would have um definitely spoken to robert black about it in one of our monthly one-to-one meetings if not having a conversation with janice ray about how
01:58:12 ray about how they were proposing to address the deficiency notice did you actually read the deficiency notice yourself yes i would have done it yes
01:58:20 yes and you summarized it there as i've shown you looking specifically at number two two flat entrances were identified as
01:58:31 two flat entrances were identified as not self-closing in fact did you appreciate at the time that the the issue that was identified was also one of maintenance of flat entrance doors uh no i don't think i appreciated that
01:58:43 uh no i don't think i appreciated that at the time right can we just look at the deficiency noticed it's tmo10015313
01:58:58 and let's just look at page five in that
01:59:08 there's the schedule of fire safety audit observations and if you go to the foot of page five article 17 1 it says
01:59:18 1 it says in the fourth line fifth line down after the reference to protected route this route should provide a safe means of escape in the event of fire and must be maintained in an efficient
01:59:30 and must be maintained in an efficient state in efficient working order and good repair did you notice that when you yes i would have you did can we then go back to your witness statement please at page 34 and look at paragraph 130 a little bit lower down the page
01:59:42 130 a little bit lower down the page and you say the council effectively placed its trust in the tmo uh that the deficiency notice would be dealt with appropriately and followed up with the lfb
01:59:53 with the lfb if the tma required additional finance etc etc
01:59:58 etc etc we've seen that before and then in the last sentence you you say that you would have let the cabinet member know about a deficiency notice and any action taken in respect of it as a matter of course
02:00:10 of it as a matter of course do you remember when you reported the deficiency notice and actions to the cabinet member no i don't um who was the cabinet member councillor fielding mellon um how would you have been able to detail the action taken without the the
02:00:22 detail the action taken without the the information coming from the tmo uh because the tmo would give me a copy of their response to the deficiency notice
02:00:29 notice which would contain the information which were which set out how they replied how they responded to the lfb
02:00:36 the lfb um right were you aware of what processed the tma adopted to monitor and action deficiency notices generally um i wasn't uh you know not as a um they
02:00:47 um i wasn't uh you know not as a um they didn't receive that many deficiency notices so um you would receive one from the
02:00:53 tmo would receive one from the lfb and then uh
02:00:56 then uh they would notify rbkc and then uh the team within the tmo would uh i'm not sure what the process or procedure was uh would then take uh would then take action in order to be able to rectify
02:01:08 action in order to be able to rectify uh the actions in the deficiency notice and then would hold a conversation with the lfb in order to ensure that the uh they were adequately meeting the uh the requirements of the notice
02:01:19 the requirements of the notice did you know that actions were not monitored by the tmo in the same way that they managed their fra actions in other words the monitoring of actions in response to deficiency or enforcement notices wasn't the same
02:01:31 enforcement notices wasn't the same process as that uh being used to monitor the closing out of fra actions arising from fras no i don't believe i did do you know why there was that
02:01:42 do you know why there was that distinction no you don't um well i can i can guess no date guys okay you said you didn't know about it uh you didn't know about it
02:01:51 it is it something you should have known about
02:01:55 uh no not necessarily why is that uh because i didn't necessarily know the detail of all the processes and the procedures that the tmo undertook in order to be able to meet the
02:02:06 in order to be able to meet the requirements uh their requirements so i didn't necessarily need to know the specifics of how the tmo undertook meeting the climates of the deficiency notice
02:02:20 was that also something that was too great you would you would have regarded or did regardless too granular for youtube
02:02:25 youtube yes that would be a level of detail that i wouldn't expect to be copied into and because each deficiency notice is different
02:02:33 different then i should imagine that the tmos response would have to be uh changed according to the deficiency noted do you remember ever raising the question with the tmo about what their system for dealing with any with deficiency or enforcement notices was
02:02:45 deficiency or enforcement notices was no i did not do you know why that is uh no well i didn't raise it with them because
02:02:52 because my experience of them dealing with deficiency notices was that they notified me they kept me informed of what was taking place in terms of the response to the lfb
02:03:03 response to the lfb um and then i was copied into the final notice that went to the lfb and or if they needed an extension of time
02:03:10 time from the lfb in order to meet the deficiency notice they notified me of that right so we can take it from that answer that that um dealing with deficiency notices was not a scrutiny or monitoring point for
02:03:21 not a scrutiny or monitoring point for rbkc
02:03:22 rbkc no it was not now if we get back to paragraph uh well back to your statement barrett but look at paragraph one two nine please um you uh say on the same page
02:03:37 uh well we've now gone to the previous page now back to the back to that page you say on page 34
02:03:44 that you knew that the lfb set out what they required the organization to rectify
02:03:50 rectify and by when this is in the penultimate line there you see that yes and then you say once that had been done a notice would be sent to the lfb informing them that it had been complied with
02:04:01 with um did you or anybody else at rbkc take note of the recommended completion dates in the deficiency notices um i i
02:04:11 um i i don't remember specifically taking a note of when the deficiency notices would be complied with but it was custom practice for the lfb normally to give six months no six months in order for a deficiency
02:04:23 six months in order for a deficiency notice to be uh completed by i see so you you were working were you on the basis of an assumption that it was a six-month qrp i was working on that assumption based on my experience of previous
02:04:34 based on my experience of previous deficiency notice that um that had been saved did you or anybody else at rbkc ever check on whether the tmo had rectified the deficiencies by the deadlines set out um the tmo let us know that they
02:04:46 set out um the tmo let us know that they had done that um and as far as i'm aware they never they uh
02:04:51 they uh they never uh they did not um sorry getting quite tired they did not uh they never they did not ever go they always went back to the lfb within the uh time period or if there
02:05:04 within the uh time period or if there was a reason for the delay then the tmo went back to the lfb to explain why and seek an extension right it would have been simple wouldn't it for
02:05:15 it for rbkc easily to monitor whether the deadline
02:05:19 deadline had been met or not it would have been quite a simple procedure yes can you explain why uh i didn't need to put that in place because i had always been kept up to date by the tmo about the responses to the
02:05:30 tmo about the responses to the deficiency notices so it wasn't an issue of concern to me that they wouldn't keep me updated standing back was it not important to the overall fire safety of the residents
02:05:42 the overall fire safety of the residents within the tma stock that our bkc's housing and the housing portfolio more generally to ensure that these actions were carried out uh yes it was yeah not least because the
02:05:54 uh yes it was yeah not least because the purpose of fras and enforcement of those through the deficiency process was to ensure compliance with the rra yes
02:06:08 now in paragraph 131 on the same page you'll see you say the tmo notified me of the deficiency notice by email the tmo sought to rectify these issues and measures
02:06:19 and measures were in the process of being undertaken that had been highlighted to them the tmo uh my understanding is that they informed the lfb and i've read that to you i think twice
02:06:31 you i think twice how did you know that the tmo had sought to rectify the issues um they would have either sent me an email to let me know that that's what they were doing or i would have had a discussion
02:06:42 would have had a discussion with mr black who would have kept me up to date on it or i would have uh spoken about it to janice rail she may have sent me an email about it so is this right that
02:06:53 so is this right that although you wouldn't have been involved at all in the process of monitoring close out of fra actions you were personally involved directly together perhaps with robert
02:07:04 directly together perhaps with robert black
02:07:05 black in relation to a deficiency notice um it was of
02:07:08 was of sufficient concern to me uh i'm afraid i can't speak for amanda johnson about what her role was in relation to deficiency notices uh that if i was notified of it that it
02:07:20 uh that if i was notified of it that it was
02:07:21 was it was dealt with in a timely manner and i did know about them and i knew the time scale with which they needed to be replied by and i uh would uh would know that and then
02:07:32 uh would uh would know that and then would be uh you know sort of keeping an eye on it so to say
02:07:38 did the receipt of a deficiency notice not alert you to the fact that something might be wrong with the tmos closeout process um not necessarily because deficiency
02:07:49 um not necessarily because deficiency notices
02:07:50 notices uh they hadn't received very many deficiency notices in my time as director of housing over eight and a half years to my knowledge must have been a very small number and
02:08:01 must have been a very small number and deficiency notices although not being served regularly can be served for a range of issues after the lfb have undertaken an inspection of a building and it didn't necessarily flag to me that there
02:08:13 didn't necessarily flag to me that there was a wholesale problem with the way the tma managed fire risk assessments it was something that the fire brigade had noticed when undertaking an inspection inspection of a building now
02:08:27 you say that it was your understanding that the tma had told the lfb that the processes were undertaken
02:08:39 were you actually informed by the tmo that the deficiencies identified by the lfb had actually been rectified um in this instance i can't remember to be honest with you
02:08:50 be honest with you were you aware that by the night of the fire at grenfell tower 14th of june 2017 one of the flat entrance doors identified as not self-closing by the lfb in this very deficiency
02:09:02 by the lfb in this very deficiency notice
02:09:03 notice was still not working no i was not no i was not aware of that were you ever provided or was rbkc provided with confirmation that the
02:09:14 rbkc provided with confirmation that the lfb had been informed that the deficiencies had been or were being rectified um i would as a normal course of events but um i don't remember in this instance
02:09:25 but um i don't remember in this instance and i haven't seen any documentation uh to my knowledge about the response by tmo to the lfb on this particular deficiency notice
02:09:37 what was the source of your understanding that the tmo had informed the lfb that the deficiencies had been rectified uh because the tmo uh met with the lfb
02:09:49 uh because the tmo uh met with the lfb uh every two months to talk about issues of fire safety so it would be my understanding that they would have discussed the deficiency notice at one of those meetings and or because in my experience the tmo
02:10:01 and or because in my experience the tmo had
02:10:02 had always responded to deficiency notices in the past uh that it would be customer practice for them to have been responded to the lfb on this deficiency notice as he said when you say my understanding
02:10:13 understanding you really mean my assumption i do unverified correct yes but unless i have documentary evidence to prove otherwise i don't remember seeing the response but that would have been
02:10:24 that would have been my unverified understanding my question really which follows from that is why were you
02:10:29 were you why did you have to make an assumption why could you not verify your assumption by investigation at the time of writing this statement no at the time of the deadline for curing
02:10:42 at the time of the deadline for curing the deficiency um if i'd wanted to uh and i could have gone back to janus ray and asked her for a copy of the notice their response to the lfb yes why didn't you do that um it must
02:10:53 yes why didn't you do that um it must have
02:10:55 have uh it's unaccountable to me that i didn't go back to janice at that point because i did take deficiency notices extremely seriously uh but clearly i didn't in this instance i'm now going to move to
02:11:08 what may appear to be a different topic but perhaps may not be which is fire doors and self-closing devices um do you remember discussions between rbkc
02:11:17 rbkc and the tmo in 2016 and the early part of 2017
02:11:21 of 2017 about the installation program for self-closing devices on flat front doors in
02:11:26 in the tmo stock yes i do and about the possibility of an annual inspection program
02:11:31 program for self-closing devices yes i do did those discussions come about as a result of the adair fire their tower fire in october 2015. yes they did
02:11:42 yes they did and uh and then there were discussions and a deficiency notice wasn't there yes there was yes um now let's look at tmo double tm00840502 please
02:11:54 tmo double tm00840502 please this is a set of minutes of a tmo executive team meeting which took place on the 11th of february 2016. so some three months after the adair
02:12:06 so some three months after the adair tower fire you can see who was present robert black uh etc
02:12:12 uh etc uh and if you look at page two there please you can look at um point three in the minutes and it says
02:12:20 says a dare tower and enforcement notice update
02:12:24 update uh and in the second paragraph there it says
02:12:27 says fola uh saying that the board will want reassurance from rbkc seen by laura and nicholas holgate and the fire brigade happy with everything
02:12:38 the fire brigade happy with everything protected roof is the smoke test robert and barbara want clarity from the strategic part of the fire brigade rbkc don't want to do this work if not required
02:12:49 required fola reputation of our bkc and tmo everything to be addressed board may say a lot in the press about fires our fire risk assessments are all okay our bkcf key partner and we do what they
02:13:02 our bkcf key partner and we do what they want
02:13:04 want paper at next board meeting will be in the open section uh now let me preface this question first of all by the obvious observation you weren't there you didn't draft these minutes uh
02:13:17 you didn't draft these minutes uh my question uh is really this um when it says rbkc don't want to do this work
02:13:24 work if not required uh are you able to tell us whether you expressed any reluctance to pay for the work required which would have resulted from the adair tower
02:13:36 resulted from the adair tower enforcement notices um i would have expressed a uh not a not a desire not to pay for it but a an understanding of how we were to uh pay for it in the course of the hra
02:13:49 uh pay for it in the course of the hra business plan so i would have questioned uh what the budget for it was where we were to find the budget from um and how we were to meet those budget requirements from the from the available resources yeah
02:14:05 yes can you explain how whoever wrote this minute or whoever said what they said at this meeting assuming this minute to be accurate
02:14:12 accurate came to the understanding that our bkc don't want to do this work if not required
02:14:17 required um so i um all i can say is that um they're probably expressing a shorthand of a conversation which would have involved myself which said
02:14:28 involved myself which said do we need to do this to meet the uh enforcement notices by rbkc if we don't have to do it then uh then can we leave this if we do have to do it then we will then we will take that forward right
02:14:40 we will take that forward right and the part that says rbkc a key partner and we do what they want was that correct um well to a certain degree but if um the tmo contained the expertise
02:14:52 um the tmo contained the expertise on a whole range of areas which i am have no qualification or or um expertise on so if they had said to me no we definitely want to do this and this needs doing then i would have taken their advice
02:15:03 taken their advice now an executive team meeting of the tma took place on the 5th of october 2016. so later in the year tm00843
02:15:14 so later in the year tm00843 861 please
02:15:26 uh this is uh the minute this is the first page of the minute you can see the date 5th of october 2016. you could see who was present there and if we go please to
02:15:36 please to page two
02:15:40 we can see that a dare tower is item three in this minute the 3.2 it says lfb are putting pressure on us to fit door closers on all our stock across the business laura johnson has said
02:15:52 laura johnson has said no to this but sasha feels that there should be a discussion at et the fire strategy is being under is being updated with the recommendation that this work is done over a five-year
02:16:03 that this work is done over a five-year period although it is likely that the lfb will expect a shorter period sasha will speak to her team about doing some profiling on this as with 9 000 properties we would need to know the estimated cost for this
02:16:14 to know the estimated cost for this and also what others are doing rbkc would need to be spoken to about this and given options
02:16:21 uh where it says laura johnson had said no to this but sasha feels that there should be a discussion at et did you did you say no to fitting self-closing devices on all doors um i didn't say no
02:16:32 doors um i didn't say no i said i received a report from the i asked for a report from the tmo about the
02:16:40 the requirement to fit self-closing doors and i asked for that specifically because we had had a programme of fitting fire doors over the course of 2011 to 2015
02:16:54 2011 to 2015 and have been in constant conversation with the lfb about the doors and about leaseholders and about the difficulty of enforcing the fitting of the fire doors particularly on leaseholder properties
02:17:07 particularly on leaseholder properties and it had taken us years in order to be able to fulfill that program and i just knew how long it took in order to be able to in a stock of nine and a half thousand
02:17:18 in a stock of nine and a half thousand properties with two and a half thousand leaseholders how long it actually took in reality for us to do that
02:17:24 that so uh i asked for a report about what the requirement was for uh door closers to be fitted um and the report came back and set out
02:17:35 um and the report came back and set out that um they thought the door closer program should be done over three years and i pushed back and said well could we push it to five years please
02:17:46 please and the tmo said we think the lfb will want it to be done quicker than that um i understood that recommendation and it was my expectation that we would set five years but it would probably have to
02:17:57 five years but it would probably have to come down to a shorter period of time but i what i didn't want to do was set the tmo up to fail because um i really wanted to understand the legal
02:18:09 i really wanted to understand the legal basis upon which door closes needed to be fitted
02:18:12 be fitted bearing in mind that we had had conversations with lfb about doors for years and years and years and this issue had never been raised and it was only being raised now in 2016
02:18:23 and it was only being raised now in 2016 and i you know if i'm honest with you i was quite cross that we had been undertaking this massive exercise around doors and it was only now that we were having to come back again and revisit this
02:18:35 to come back again and revisit this particular issue when we could have done it at the same time that we had the door refitting the door program and undertaking all of those exercises with the leaseholders because we'd have to come back again and
02:18:46 because we'd have to come back again and do it again um and the issue of who where the demise of the door
02:18:51 the door sat with leaseholders is really not straightforward and neither is the issue of how you can take legal action in order to enforce it it is not straightforward so having knowing very clearly
02:19:03 so having knowing very clearly that the that it took three years maybe maybe longer in order to sort out uh 130 doors uh leaseholder doors and 1200 tenanted doors it was of my opinion
02:19:15 1200 tenanted doors it was of my opinion that actually we needed to spread this program over out over a longer period just in terms of in order for it to be able to be a success because actually getting in and fitting
02:19:26 because actually getting in and fitting those door closers particularly to leaseholder doors was going to be extremely difficult and very time consuming yes now we're going to look at much of what you've just told us
02:19:37 what you've just told us in what i'm afraid was rather a long answer
02:19:40 answer my question was was a simpler one did you say no as recorded here no i didn't say no uh
02:19:53 now go to rbk3048317
02:19:59 the matter of door closer was was raised in this document which is an executive decision report
02:20:07 and we can see it's uh for the full cabinet dated 12th january 2017 reporting officer laura johnson director of housing key decision yes just pausing there what
02:20:18 key decision yes just pausing there what was your role in writing this report
02:20:22 um i probably didn't write the report it was probably written by uh steve muller
02:20:32 but i would have checked it and uh agreed to it yes and your name is on page three so usual usual process um if we look uh at page 15 in this document please
02:20:43 uh at page 15 in this document please and and specifically paragraph 13 on that page fire safety requirements paragraph 13 1 the fire at a tower in october 2015 resulted in the london fire brigade lfb
02:20:56 resulted in the london fire brigade lfb issuing enforcement notices for adair and hazelwood towers the key recommendations required the installation of self-closing devices on flat entrance doors fire action notices installed on all
02:21:07 fire action notices installed on all floors and works to ensure the staircases will remain safe and smoke free in the event of a fire in the course of the recent regular audits carried out the lfb is now issuing a deficiency
02:21:18 the lfb is now issuing a deficiency notices citing as further actions required
02:21:21 required the installation of self-closing devices on flat entrance doors and the posting of fire action's notices as the lfb had expected the council through the tmo to put in place a program of self-closing devices on flat
02:21:33 program of self-closing devices on flat entrance doors across all the council's housing stock the tmo has assessed the cost to complete this program over a three year period
02:21:40 period to be six hundred and twenty thousand pounds with a further two thousand five hundred pounds to complete the installation of fire action notices the lfb also expect there to be regular
02:21:51 the lfb also expect there to be regular inspection of the self-closing devices to ensure they remain properly in place and active however it should be noted this is power 13 2.
02:22:00 13 2. however it should be noted that there are significant challenges facing the delivery of these works in the context of the current leases legal advice is being sought to establish the practical implications of completing these works to all homes
02:22:11 completing these works to all homes tenanted and leasehold and ensuring that the closures stay in place
02:22:17 place now i've read that at length did the executive come to any decision about these methods in 2017 um january 27th there was a decision taken to do the program over five years in
02:22:28 to do the program over five years in order in part to spread the cost of the 620 000 pounds over that period and to take into account uh the very practical
02:22:37 practical realities of being able to undertake the programme in a three-year period but it was my expectation i have to say at this time that we would be challenged on that by the lfb and that we would have to
02:22:49 the lfb and that we would have to shorten that program again right now you may not have heard me qualify the question january 2017. was the decision taken uh by um by cabinet at that stage
02:23:01 uh by um by cabinet at that stage yes it would have been yeah right um can we look then at an email chain later in the same month 25th of january 2017 at rbk401038
02:23:16 if we start please in the email run at page two
02:23:20 page two we go to page two we see that this is janice ray writing to robert black on the 25th of january 2017. uh and i i don't believe you're copied
02:23:33 uh and i i don't believe you're copied in on it
02:23:34 in on it uh and if the subject is a dare tower letter from lfb please find attached letter received yesterday from the lfb confirming that the works specified in the enforcement notice
02:23:44 notice have been satisfactorily completed within the has been satisfactory completed within the specified time limit lfb have confirmed that they will be sending a similar letter in relation to hazelwood tower
02:23:56 hazelwood tower and i will forward a copy of this when we receive it now if we move up then please uh to the next document at page one we can see
02:24:07 the next document at page one we can see that robert black sends this to you for information on the the same day the foot of page one he says laura for information somewhere it might be good to meet to
02:24:18 somewhere it might be good to meet to look at how we respond to the fire brigade as i think we are being driven down a road by a group which seems to be unaccountable is the overall responsibility for this moving to the mayor might give us and la political leaders
02:24:31 might give us and la political leaders to influence this area more do you remember receiving that email uh yes did you discuss its contents with mr black
02:24:40 black i would have done did you discuss its contents with any counselors i don't remember did you discuss its contents with nick padgett brown uh i i wouldn't have expected i would have no
02:24:50 have no did you take any steps to discuss the substance of the notice with the lfb no did you consider mr black's suggestion here uh regarding uh political influence
02:25:04 uh regarding uh political influence uh uh to be appropriate
02:25:08 yes you did um well he's asking he's asking a question
02:25:14 question for me uh uh to have a conversation about it
02:25:18 about it um and to go back and talk to political leaders
02:25:22 leaders uh whether there's an opportunity to to influence a decision on this subject um i i don't consider that an inappropriate uh email for mr black to send to me he's just asking a question
02:25:34 just asking a question posing a question making a statement you know he is and we can see your response at the top of the page uh you go back to him same same day uh
02:25:47 same same day uh an hour or so later and you say robert i don't think it's moving to the mayor but i'm not entirely sighted on what's happening on this brian castle used to go to the borough straight lf liaison meetings for london councils but he's retired and we haven't got a new rep
02:25:59 got a new rep i think you're right that they are unaccountable and hard if not impossible to challenge as they make unilateral statements which are non-negotiable however on the bright side this has now been signed off which is very welcome did you regard the lfb's enforcement of
02:26:12 did you regard the lfb's enforcement of your obligations under the rro or the tmo's obligations under the rro as
02:26:18 as negotiable not negotiable in terms of deficiency uh or notices but um there's a distinction here to be drawn between
02:26:29 drawn between the fitting of door closers and door closes being put in place and then the the question of undertaking annual checks on door closes so
02:26:40 annual checks on door closes so the lfb had asked us to do that but i wasn't clear at that time and neither was i don't want to speak for robert black but i don't think he was either whether it was just the lfb asking
02:26:52 it was just the lfb asking rbkc to undertake that program whether it was going to be a london wide programme
02:26:57 programme or whether it was going to be a national program that was going to be put in place
02:27:01 place for an annual check of door closes because it wasn't currently part of our uh suite of compliance checks that we undertook
02:27:09 undertook and we i didn't understand it i can't speak for anyone else it to be something that was undertaken um as routine by other local authorities and or housing associations
02:27:21 housing associations what did you want to be negotiable um i wanted to understand uh from the lfb whether there was any movement on on that annual checking and was this something
02:27:32 was this something that we had to do was this now a statutory requirement was this a requirement under the rro and that's where we were seeking to get further legal advice on it because it's quite a uh it's not only a very big
02:27:46 it's quite a uh it's not only a very big undertaking to a fit door closes to nine and a half thousand properties of which uh two and a half thousand are leaseholders uh but it's also a a considerable undertaking to then have
02:27:57 undertaking to then have pro a checking program in place which is equivalent uh to uh lgsr checks so gas safety checks
02:28:05 checks which have to be undertaken every 12 months
02:28:08 months with lgsr checks there's a considerable amount of statutory basis for that and the ability to take legal action in order to be able to enforce against that that's not the same for
02:28:19 for uh the regulatory form fire safety order nor was it clear to me that on what basis legally we we had to do this
02:28:27 do this you could challenge the lfe's decision in court couldn't you yes i suppose you could have done so why would you want to negotiate over it you could just challenge it if you thought it was wrong um uh well
02:28:39 thought it was wrong um uh well going to court is uh is an expensive business um and it's um it's often better to reach a decision uh through one of uh conversation and or discussion um and
02:28:51 conversation and or discussion um and particularly with uh with this particular item as i reference here that we have i was chair at the time of london councils
02:29:03 councils and we had an lfb liaison meeting which was really really useful for teasing out those london wide issues that
02:29:11 that you know kind of we wanted to discuss well london wide or otherwise did you realize that the lga guidance which had been published by the dclg
02:29:21 the dclg in 2011 in the wake of blacknell house required uh the installation and maintenance of working door closers in blocks such as grenfell tower
02:29:33 in blocks such as grenfell tower i would have read it but i didn't remember it at this time because i was uh
02:29:37 uh um you know sort of cognizant of the fact around door closes it wasn't door closes per se it was the having an annual checking program that i was seeking um seeking information right and
02:29:49 seeking um seeking information right and it looks as if mr black who no doubt will speak to this document
02:29:53 document was suggesting that some sort of political uh solution might be found to this rather than simply complying with the legal obligations mandated by parliament um he was
02:30:04 mandated by parliament um he was suggesting that there may be some way to discuss with the lfb that uh but there's a difference between uh and
02:30:10 uh and having a door closers in place and maintaining them and then having a a program that checks them every year and there's a distinction to be to be made there because
02:30:22 made there because you could have a boiler in a property and you could have fitted it and it could have been correct um but uh it's it's a whole different category to say that you then have to do it on you then have to check that boiler
02:30:33 it on you then have to check that boiler on an annual basis and that is the same for door closers and as i understand it
02:30:40 although it is set out in the rro that this is a requirement to have this the actual mandating of having a checking program won't actually be in place until the new uh how fire safety bill comes into place
02:30:51 how fire safety bill comes into place can we go to rbk3014072 please uh this is a joint management uh team
02:31:02 uh this is a joint management uh team meeting
02:31:03 meeting minute of the 1st of march 2017 at which you are present as you can see as is amanda johnson and others from our bkc and from tma we can see
02:31:14 from our bkc and from tma we can see robert black and others as well including peter madison
02:31:19 madison and it's mark draft um but if you um it's the version that was emailed along with the joint management team agenda for the june 2017 meeting
02:31:30 june 2017 meeting so as far as we can tell it's the final version uh can we look at page two please
02:31:34 please point five
02:31:38 uh at the bottom it says under the heading
02:31:42 heading installation of self-closer doors and annual inspection so two things there
02:31:49 there will be a huge cost if want to do this nobody has an inspection processor present
02:31:55 present as it's not a legal requirement to have yearly checks could be an option to include in this in the fire strategy need to develop a program and take to scrutiny liability if the doors are broken would be with the tmo
02:32:07 broken would be with the tmo laura agreed to hold off recommending inspections program at present now is it is it correct that it was decided at this meeting that
02:32:18 at this meeting that the proposed installation of self-closing devices was to be a five-year
02:32:23 five-year program not a three-year program um it doesn't say that um but there is i i don't know whether it was decided at this meeting but i had a follow-up
02:32:34 this meeting but i had a follow-up meeting with barbara i'm sorry i've forgotten her name matthews matthews um uh where we discussed uh door closer program
02:32:43 program and she confirmed in a follow-up email to me that we discussed three years and and i'd said could we could we spread this out to five years and then she had confirmed that uh that discussion
02:32:54 discussion and that would include that isn't just the annual inspection it's the installation isn't it uh that was about looking at the installation program in order to make it realistic for us to be able to do it in
02:33:05 realistic for us to be able to do it in the time scales required based on my experience of how long it took for us to do the door program uh previously between 2011 to something like 2014-15
02:33:22 and you've already explained to us your view about the proposal to hold annual inspections of the self-closing devices in your long answer earlier but can we identify
02:33:32 identify this date this meeting as the moment when
02:33:36 when it was decided as between rbkc and the tmo
02:33:39 tmo not to have an inspection program um not to have an inspection program subject to further legal advice because we were in the process of i asked for further legal advice about
02:33:50 further legal advice about what the requirement was for the annual inspection program and i also said that i wanted to take it up with the uh through the london council's fire safety group to understand if that was a requirement
02:34:01 requirement across london or across nationally and that i also said in other emails that i would uh i suppose push back on that because i wanted to have a better understanding of what the
02:34:13 have a better understanding of what the industry standard was for that right so do we take it that you were effectively
02:34:21 looking to see whether you could challenge the lfb's requirement uh challenge but also clarify
02:34:30 clarify because if i was of the if i would if i found out
02:34:33 found out that the lfb and or nationally this was a standard procedure and i didn't know that it was but if it was then i would have come back and gone actually this is something that is everybody is doing
02:34:44 that is everybody is doing this is in place we just don't know about it this is what we need to do crack on but if it was just a request from the specific
02:34:51 specific uh specifically to the tmo then i would have gone back and challenged and said why are why is our organization being asked to do an annual checking program but nobody else is so
02:35:03 checking program but nobody else is so you
02:35:04 you suspected that you were being singled out for special treatment as it were i didn't think i was being single i didn't think we were being singled out for special treatment but uh the policy as i understood it the policy unit across
02:35:16 i understood it the policy unit across the lfb didn't necessarily say the same thing to every single borough and so i was seeking to qualify whether this was going to be a requirement across london and then i really wanted to also understand
02:35:28 really wanted to also understand exactly under what legal require how we would take action against people legally if they didn't comply with this because uh based on my experience of the door replacement program
02:35:40 door replacement program it had been um somewhat legally confused about how we took action in order to enforce
02:35:47 enforce leaseholders to replace the doors yeah i mean that's all very well in one sense but of course this had all arisen because there had been an actual fire in an actual building yes actually managed by the tmo yes
02:35:58 yes actually managed by the tmo yes had that did that fact not have a bearing on why it might very well be that the lfb were taking the steps that they wanted you to take um
02:36:07 um uh i don't know to be honest i don't know i can't answer that uh that question i can say that the the enforcement notice that the lfb said did ask us to do door closers um which
02:36:19 did ask us to do door closers um which the tmo did put in place um and that's all i can say did the fact of the fire uh at ed air tower at the end of october 2015 not indicate something to you that
02:36:30 2015 not indicate something to you that the program that you'd you'd put in place and had operated for the previous years wasn't fully effective at least so far as ensuring fire safety of the occupants of that building were concerned um the fire of the day tower was um was
02:36:44 um the fire of the day tower was um was arson and the fire was contained it was a compartmentalization worked in that particular instance and that was in a large part due to the fact that we had i believe undertaken
02:36:56 fact that we had i believe undertaken the door
02:36:56 the door door program and so there would have been a correctly rated door fitted to that property can you explain then why the fire was the um
02:37:05 the um trigger for the enforcement notice then uh the
02:37:09 uh the uh because the lfb inspected the building after the fire and then under sent an enforcement notice after that yeah because they had found
02:37:17 found the fire safety systems in the building seriously deficient but the lfb had also undertaken an inspection of the adair tower prior to the fire
02:37:28 to the fire and i believe they didn't find that but they did find it after the fight and and that's i i would fully expect that really because you wouldn't necessarily understand um
02:37:39 you wouldn't necessarily understand um how
02:37:39 how uh the smoke would travel or how a fire would behave in a building until it had actually happened um do you remember reading the paper that has been prepared for this meeting by janice ray on this topic
02:37:51 by janice ray on this topic uh the report that i'd requested on that yesterday yeah the rbk 50 is 988. if we can just look at that
02:38:09 this is a document identifying itself as jmt first march 2017 installation of self-closing devices on flat entrance doors for discussion is that is that the report yes it is did
02:38:22 is that is that the report yes it is did that paper provide the basis for the discussion at the meeting yes it would have done
02:38:25 have done and the decision that appears to have been taken yes it does now it refers uh if you go to the middle of page two uh to the
02:38:33 uh to the recent two recently received nfb deficiency notices
02:38:38 um as you can see there three paragraphs down one related to barrendon walk and another related to nine coalville
02:38:49 and another related to nine coalville square
02:38:50 square and then uh underneath that in the penultimate paragraph it says this the final two deficiency notices i'm so sorry i should have started earlier on look at the second paragraph
02:39:02 earlier on look at the second paragraph it says since the fire at a dare tower the tmo have received nine deficiency notices five of the nine notices were issued in relation to different
02:39:09 different staircases at the same block balfour house
02:39:13 house and then the next paragraph is the one i've referred to brandon walk then there's colville square and then it says this the final two deficiency notices both received in recent months include
02:39:23 include reference to self-closing devices in their schedule of deficiencies and require installation and or maintenance of self-closing device
02:39:30 device specifically lonsdale house portobello courtesy state and grenfell tower lancaster west estate it's quote several doors checked at time audit
02:39:38 audit did not self-close at both these locations all tenanted flat doors had been replaced with fully compliant self-closing fire rated door sets in 2013 to 14.
02:39:49 fire rated door sets in 2013 to 14. were you surprised that two blocks which have had their doors replaced in the last
02:39:54 last in the previous five years had self-closing devices that weren't working
02:39:58 working uh not particularly if i'm honest with you because um self-closing devices despite being an essential part of the fire safety system
02:40:09 fire safety system if you live in a flat are really quite irritating because they shut they can either make the door very heavy to open so difficult for tenants to pull open they make the door shut hence the reason
02:40:20 they make the door shut hence the reason why they're self-closers and uh it was my understanding that they could
02:40:25 could they're fairly easy easy to disable and tenants if they so wanted to would would disable them because they found them quite irritating yes i mean irritating
02:40:37 quite irritating yes i mean irritating or not
02:40:38 or not it was a responsible person's obligation to make sure they worked wasn't it yes it was at the bottom of page three of this paper we can see there's a table and it sets out the indicative costings for an
02:40:49 out the indicative costings for an inspection and maintenance program you could see it there 619 000 pounds for the installation program for the whole stock and 288 000 pounds for the maintenance program uh
02:41:02 for the maintenance program uh looking at section two there which has uh some figures based on the following assumptions 60 doors fully compliant do you see that
02:41:13 doors fully compliant do you see that yes um
02:41:14 yes um were you satisfied that given the reported difficulties with self-closing doors the assumption of 40 requiring repair replacement or adjustments was reasonable or realistic
02:41:25 adjustments was reasonable or realistic um i must have assumed that it was uh realistic at the time did anybody tell you that it was reasonable i don't specifically remember those words being spoken did you have any
02:41:37 words being spoken did you have any advice on which you could rely to cut to satisfy yourself that that the figure of 40
02:41:44 of 40 not fully compliant was reasonable no did the scale of the proposed program give you any cause for concern about the fire safety consequences of such a significant problem with
02:41:55 of such a significant problem with self-closing devices at this time uh not at this time
02:42:01 was your greater concern in reality ms johnson a a for the cost consequences of a programme of repair replacement and monitoring uh cost is always a consideration
02:42:12 uh cost is always a consideration whenever you're managing a budget uh which has considerable shortfalls and where there are uh many pulls on the different budget but um
02:42:21 but um there's never been any dispute there was never any disputed rbkc about paying for measures that were required for health and safety as was evidenced by the door closer program
02:42:32 was evidenced by the door closer program that we undertook the door program that we undertook previously i would have had concerns about spreading the cost and not having the cost all in one year because that's a considerable amount of
02:42:44 because that's a considerable amount of money say
02:42:45 money say near enough a million pounds to spend on this program in one year but it would have been a secondary consideration to just the reality of being able to do it in that time period and then what action the lfb were
02:42:57 period and then what action the lfb were taking against us as a result of not being able to complete the program in that time scale and and how we were going to do it particularly based on the fact that we had so many leaseholders in the stock
02:43:09 leaseholders in the stock and the majority of our stock was uh was flat 96
02:43:12 flat 96 was flat and following this meeting barbara matthews sent you an email and we'll look at that rbk four zeroes one nine seven nine
02:43:24 one nine seven nine can i just ask you to look at that please
02:43:30 uh uh it's third of march 2017 second part of the screen laura just to confirm our discussion and agreement at the joint management team on wednesday
02:43:41 team on wednesday we agreed we'd have a program of fitting of self-closures on existing flat doors if not already fitted and refit straight repair self-closures if already fitted this program would not be over one year but proposed as three to five years
02:43:54 but proposed as three to five years our recommendation is that the lfb are unlikely to accept as adequate a program longer than three years although this has yet to be proposed to them the estimated cost for the total program regardless of period is 619
02:44:05 regardless of period is 619 000 pounds that's that's a figure we've seen in respect of a proposed annual inspection to check straight repair straight replace the self closes you requested that we delay starting this until we've obtained further legal
02:44:16 this until we've obtained further legal advice on what action we can or can't take
02:44:19 take against no access by either tenants or leaseholders please let me know if i've incorrectly captured anything in addition please confirm we can include in our updated fire strategy
02:44:30 include in our updated fire strategy a three-year program for fitting of self-closers on all flat entry doors regards barbara your response to that we can see above that barbara i can confirm that this is an accurate record of our discussion
02:44:42 accurate record of our discussion i'd like to push the installation of door closers to a five-year program it will make funding the program more manageable therefore in the fire strategy i would like it to say five years rather than three i am not
02:44:54 five years rather than three i am not convinced of the need for an inspection program
02:44:56 program if we started one then there is every likelihood it would have to be ongoing and therefore an additional expense to the hra indefinitely without any identifiable evidence that it impacted positively upon the fire safety as
02:45:07 safety as of residents i understand that the conversation is not always straightforward with the lfb and they will may well push for this but if they want to well they if they want to they they
02:45:18 to well they if they want to they they can introduce it as a london-wide standard that they will enforce against rather than on a borough by borough basis
02:45:23 basis and we would make representation to the gla accordingly i look forward to the legal advice uh did you alone decide that the self-closing devices installation
02:45:34 self-closing devices installation program should be implemented over a five-year period uh yes i requested that did you take any advice from rbkc's health and safety advisor
02:45:41 advisor about the fire safety consequences of a widespread problem such as with self-closing devices no i did not
02:45:49 did not did you take any advice from that person about the fire safety consequences of putting it off over a five-year period uh no i did not did you take any advice from any of our bkc's fra team about the fire safety
02:46:01 bkc's fra team about the fire safety consequences of doing what you were proposing no i did not did you take any advice from anyone about whether the effectiveness of the fire safety measures for residential dwellings in the tma's stock might be impaired by extending the
02:46:14 stock might be impaired by extending the duration of the self-closing device repair program from three to five years uh no i did not but it was my full expectation that that five years would be shortened to a much shorter time period if you had
02:46:25 to a much shorter time period if you had needed a grant of additional money to fund a fire safety program to whom at rbkc would you have applied we either would have been able to get it from existing hra resources or if it was a significant sum of money
02:46:37 or if it was a significant sum of money then we would have gone to cabinet to request that money did you consider whether to make an application for a grant of additional funding from either source uh no i mean it could be accommodated with existing resources at that time
02:46:49 with existing resources at that time why didn't you consider whether to make an application for a grant of additional funding from either of these sources um in retrospect i wish i had but i didn't at the time no but why didn't you at the time um i didn't at the time
02:47:00 didn't at the time because as i've said i wanted to take further legal advice at that time about the requirement for an inspection programme and also about our legal ability in
02:47:11 and also about our legal ability in order to be able to gain access to properties because i wanted to be very sure about how if we were not going to gain access
02:47:20 access what action we could take in order to to get access and if we couldn't gain any access then that's very difficult for us to be able to enact that program had you received the legal advice by the time you sent this letter no i had not
02:47:32 time you sent this letter no i had not no it was
02:47:32 no it was when did you get it um i don't remember when i received it to be honest was it before the fire or after the fire at grenfell tower um if it came after the fire then i am afraid i wouldn't remember it
02:47:46 it looks from this document that the sole basis of your decision to extend the duration out to five years was money is that fair um it looks like that from uh from this document but i don't think that's a fair representation
02:47:57 that's a fair representation of uh my views on it because there was very much a conversation about the reality of being able to do that based on our experience of uh of the previous program which had taken years in order to be able to
02:48:09 taken years in order to be able to implement
02:48:10 implement indeed but we don't see any trace of any other factor in this email no and i don't and i didn't write that in this particular email so um i i can fully understand why the inquiry would draw that conclusion
02:48:24 were you aware that as a result of this email barbara matthews amended the fire strategy to include a five-year installation program with no inspection arrangements um i would have been yes so was that your intention it looks like
02:48:35 so was that your intention it looks like this yes it would have been what it was yes would you agree that in practice your email amounted to or at least was taken by
02:48:41 taken by miss matthews to be a direction to extend the duration of the installation program
02:48:45 program with no inspection arrangements yes what was your view of the lfb's clear advice on the need to maintain and inspect self-closing devices um i you know i i i don't remember exactly what my
02:48:57 i i i don't remember exactly what my views were in march 2017 but all i can say is i was clearly an error i accepted the fact that we needed a door closer program
02:49:09 that we needed a door closer program and that one should be put in place i wanted to do that with the full understanding of the legal advice required in order to be able to gain access particularly to leaseholder doors
02:49:19 doors but what i really wanted to understand was whether statutory we needed to do an inspection program did you take any steps to discover what the possible risks health and safety risks of failing to
02:49:30 health and safety risks of failing to have working self-closing devices in tmo buildings were no i didn't and that was an oversight on my behalf
02:49:53 uh i'm beginning to think this might be a good moment yes mr chairman i just want to
02:49:58 want to ask one question about it by reference to another document it'll take two minutes
02:50:02 minutes if i may just just then i come to the end of the topic um can i ask you to look please at hom3045964 this is the lga guide i referred to
02:50:13 this is the lga guide i referred to earlier
02:50:16 uh which uh was published um i said in in 2011 i think it was published in 2011 but this version is in may 2012. can i ask you to go please to
02:50:27 may 2012. can i ask you to go please to page 125 and look at paragraph 82.3
02:50:35 uh 82 inspections and repairs of other safety measures uh underneath that you'll see fire resisting doors at 82.3 good practice is to inspect timber fire resisting door sets on a six monthly
02:50:47 resisting door sets on a six monthly basis
02:50:47 basis as part of a program of planned preventative maintenance these inspections are aimed at identifying defects such as first bullet point missing or ineffective self-closing devices
02:50:58 ineffective self-closing devices and then at 82.4 flat entrance doors should be included within this programme where leasehold flats are involved this will only be possible if there is legal right of access by means of a condition
02:51:09 right of access by means of a condition within the lease to carry this out it is important that any new leases include such a condition my first question is were you aware that national guidance from 2011 and certainly may 2012
02:51:21 certainly may 2012 recommended a six monthly program of planned preventative maintenance and inspections no it was not did did you think to obtain advice or ask the tmo to obtain
02:51:32 obtain advice or ask the tmo to obtain advice
02:51:33 advice uh on the appropriateness of amending the um uh
02:51:36 the um uh uh the program
02:51:40 um well yes i was seeking legal advice right
02:51:44 right mr chairman thank you is that a convenient moment i think it is thank you very much uh before we finally rise to the day how are we getting on with this very well indeed uh we will not require mrs johnson's
02:51:57 we will not require mrs johnson's presence
02:51:58 presence for the whole day tomorrow can you be a little bit more specific yes um it depends very much on what follow-up questions i i'm asked to ask or i find to ask but at the moment uh i would think that we
02:52:11 at the moment uh i would think that we are we may well go up to lunchtime tomorrow
02:52:14 tomorrow but not beyond right well miss johnson i'm sorry i'm going to have to ask you to come back to answer some more questions tomorrow but there it is
02:52:23 it is i maybe that's not entirely unexpected but uh
02:52:28 but uh that is the position so we'll stop now for the day we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow please um we'll do our best to get you away by lunchtime possibly even earlier see what can be done and in the meantime
02:52:40 see what can be done and in the meantime please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it all right okay thank you thank you very much thank you very much
02:52:59 thank you 10 o'clock tomorrow then
02:53:08 please
02:53:31 you