Grenfell Phase 2 - Volume 2 - Part 3 - Chapter 25

jayl91: As I say, we don't really need to discuss why I'm back or what's gone on any further. But those of you that are fans of country music Luke Combs back in the saddle. ⁓ And for me, I went and him live last Friday and that song really felt like it spoke to me about the fact that now everything's dealt with, I I myself need to get back in the saddle. Hello and welcome to another delayed episode of Fire Ninja where we are going to continue going through the Grenfell Phase Two inquiry report. Now, elephant in the room, I'm sorry it's been so long recording. Those of you that follow me on LinkedIn, you'll know why. We don't really need to discuss it anymore. So without further ado, we're just gonna straight back in. We were at ⁓ volume two, part three. And then I'm going to let you know what it is we're going to be talking about today in chapter twenty-five. And it's chapter twenty five, the certification of Celitex RS five thousand by the LABC. If you need to refresh yourself on what's been gone previously, all the previous episodes are still live on the Spotify channel. So, here we go. Initial contact with LABC On the twenty ninth of october twenty thirteen, Jonathan Roper, Cellatex's product manager, spoke to Cathal Brennan, LABC's technical coordinator. about the possibility of obtaining an LABC certificate for RS five thousand. mister Brennan informed his colleague David Ewing, the manager of LABC's registered details approval scheme of the conversation by email, telling him that Mr Roper had asked a number of questions about a competitor, by which he subsequently confirmed he meant Kingspan and LABC's relationship with it. Celotex saw obtaining an LABC registered detail certificate as an important step in promoting RS five thousand, in part because it would protect its use from the risk of challenge by building control officers. Indeed, marketing material sent by LABC to Celotex included the claim that it could be considered a quote fast track, end quote, through building control, because once it had been approved, Local authority building control departments would not have to repeat the process. Mr. Roper subsequently met Mr. Ewing on the eighteenth of november twenty thirteen at Celitex's offices to discuss the process of obtaining an LABC certificate. Mr. Ewing understood that Celitex wanted a certificate to enable the product to compete with the Kingspan K fifteen. He was not aware at that stage that RS five thousand was the same as FR five thousand. He had believed that that Celitex had been developing a new product. At the meeting, Mr Roper questioned whether Kingspan K fifteen could be described as a material of limited combustibility, as it was in the LABC certificate then in force. Mr Ewing was not able to answer that question, given his lack of knowledge at the time, so he asked David Jones, who had carried out the research leading to the issue of the certificate relating to K fifteen. On the nineteenth of december twenty thirteen, mister Ewing sent mister Jones an email seeking his assistance with Celitex's question. On the twentieth of december twenty thirteen, mister Jones responded, referring mister Ewing to section seven of the BBA certificate relating to K fifteen, an extract from Kingsband's technical literature and LABC's internal assessment. mister Jones told him that as K fifteen was described as class naught, it could be termed a material of limited combustibility and so was suitable for use on buildings over eighteen meters in height in accordance with approved document B. That was a fundamental misunderstanding on his part, and none of the material Mr Jones relied on supported that conclusion. Mr Ewing told the inquiry that he had not been sure that that answered his question, but he assumed that that was due to his own lack of understanding. Nevertheless, he did not seek help from anyone else in attempting to understand it. Mr Ewing passed the substance of Mr Jones' response on to mister Roper on the second of january twenty fourteen. Mr Roper replied on the third of january twenty fourteen, stating that Celitex was confident that it could also prove that RS five thousand was classified as class naught. He realised that LABC had made a fundamental mistake but thought that it was viewed as advantageous to Celitex. and therefore did not correct Mr Ewing. Registered Detail four hundred ninety one Following the test in accordance with BS eight four one four dash two twenty five on the second of may twenty fourteen, mister Roper contacted Mr Ewing again on the fifteenth of may twenty fourteen to confirm that Celitex wanted to pursue an application for an LABC registered detail certificate. Tim Bartlett of West Suffolk District Council had been identified by LABC as a suitable person to assess the product because he was on LABC's registration and partnerships group and regularly involved in peer reviews. But no steps had been taken to ascertain his level of understanding of approved document B. Mr Bartlett visited Celitex's office during the week of the ninth of june twenty fourteen to discuss the application. Following his visit, mister Roper provided what he called the quote first batch end quote of information to support the application and set out the wording that Celtex was seeking to have included in the certificate. It read as follows RS five thousand can be used with a variety of cladding systems. including masonry or rainscreen systems, and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry. Celitex RS five thousand has successfully tested to BS eight four one four Part two two thousand five, meets the criteria set out in BR one hundred three five and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above eighteen meters in height, subject to the board being fixed to a non combustible substrate. Alternative compliance to ADB The product has class naught fire performance end quote. That description of RS five thousand's fire performance had been taken almost directly from Appendix A to the registered detail certificate for K fifteen. Mr Ewing thought he had realized at the time that Celitex was effectively seeking the same broad statements that had been made in respect of Kingspan K fifteen. mister Roper sent a further email to Mr Bartlett on the seventeenth of june twenty fourteen, providing a copy of a letter from BRE to Confirming that a system incorporating RS five thousand had been tested in accordance with BS eight hundred four one four part two, and that a test report and classification document under BR one hundred thirty five was being issued. The letter did not give any details about the system that had been tested, nor did it say what conclusions BRE had drawn when classifying. Notwithstanding that, on the thirtieth of june twenty fourteen, Mr Bartlett sent an email to Mr Brennan telling him that that was his last day at West Suffolk, and that although he had not been able to finalise Cellatex's certificate pending provision of further information, once that information was available, he expected it to satisfy the requirements. Among the information that was yet to be received was the BR one hundred thirty five classification report from BRE. Mr Bartlett attached to his email a draft compliance declaration form, drawing and documents list, as well as a briefing note, which stated RS three 5000 has been successfully tested to BS eight four one four part two two thousand and five, meets the criteria set out in BR 135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height, subject to the board being fixed to a non combustible substrate. Alternative to compliance to approve document B. That was the very wording that had been requested by Jonathan Roper and was used by Celitex as a central plank of its marketing strategy. By suggesting and then relying on untrue and misleading statements of that kind, it hoped to avoid challenge by building control officers. However, a statement that Celitex RS five thousand had been successfully tested to BS eight four one four. and met the criteria set out in BR one three five could never properly be made, since such claims could be made only in relation to the system as a whole and not in relation to individual components. It is remarkable that LABC saw fit to prepare a draft of that kind without having seen the classification report itself. Its approach was fundamentally flawed. However at the time No one at LABC challenged Mr Bartlett's approach or the claims made about the product's performance. Mr Ewing accepted that he might have been under the misapprehension at the time that if a product had formed part of a system which had obtained a classification report in accordance with BR one hundred thirty five, it could be used on any buildings above eighteen meters in height. In the event, despite having left West Suffolk, Mr Bartlett continued to be involved in the assessment process for RS five thousand. On the twenty fourth of july twenty fourteen, he sent an email to Mr Brennan with a copy to Mr Ewing, attaching further documents for the RS five thousand certificate and indicating that it was ready for peer review. Among the attachments to that email were BRE's letter of the seventeenth of june twenty fourteen and a class naught classification report for RS five thousand dated fourteenth of july twenty fourteen. No BR no BR one hundred thirty five classification report was attached, not least since LABC had not received one. Further, none of the attachments the system that had been tested. or how it had performed against the criteria in BR one hundred thirty five. Mr Bartlett told Mr Ewing that Celitex was still waiting for the test report, but had provided the letter from BRE in the hope that LABC would accept it as sufficient proof of compliance. On the same day, Mr Brennan circulated the compliance declaration, drawings and document list, and details of RS five thousand to the peer review group. mister Bartlett responded the same day attaching a draft certificate, the wording of which stated that RS five thousand was suitable for use on buildings over eighteen meters in height. On the eighth of august twenty fourteen, Mr Ewing sent an email to Cathol Brennan and Sam Lee Muller noting that Celitex had still not provided a BR one hundred three five classification report. He observed that that was an important document as LABC was under scrutiny from NHBC regarding its certification of Kingspan K fifteen. He said that the certificate for RS five thousand should not be issued until the report had been received. Later that day, an LABC employee, Robert Adungo, sent an email to Mr Brennan, noting that Celitex's publicity for the launch of RS five thousand, including the claim that it was quote supported by LABC approval. was not correct because LABC had not issued a certificate. Nonetheless, Mr Brennan told Celitex that it could refer to LABC at the product launch. Presumably in a way that implied that LABC had approved or was going to approve the product. Mr Brennan said that he had acted on the basis of a misunderstanding of BRE's letter of the seventeenth of june twenty fourteen, and on the fact that RS five thousand had received four votes at the peer review stage. However, the holding letter from BRE did not provide any basis for a claim of that kind, and those who carried out the peer review had not themselves been provided with a classification report, and so had no basis for reaching any final view about the product's compliance with the statutory guidance. That was plainly not an acceptable approach. Mr Ewing sent an email to Mr Roper shortly after. Asking for the classification report, Mr Roper responded, attaching a copy of the BR one hundred thirty five classification report. Mr Ewing sent it on to Mr Brangen, with the comment that it contained everything needed to satisfy the criteria in paragraphs twelve point five and six of approved document B. However, in saying that, Mr Ewing was still labouring under the misapprehension of that the classification report provided some form of general support for the use of RS five thousand on buildings over eighteen meters in height, which was not the case. Despite having been alerted to the fact that Celitex's marketing and promotional materials included a claim that RS five thousand had its approval, notwithstanding that it had not issued a certificate for the product, LABC did not attempt to make Celitex correct that statement or remonstrate it for making a misleading claim. On the eleventh of august twenty fourteen, Mr Bartlett confirmed that having seen the classification report, everything appeared to be in order, although he noted that it related to the particular system tested rather than the use of RS five thousand on buildings over eighteen meters in height generally. He therefore questioned whether the certificate should be limited to the specific system tested. In response, Mr Ewing confirmed that the certificate should relate to what had been tested, but then expressed the view that the rainscreen construction was relatively standard, a comment for which, as he accepted, there had been no basis. Despite that fact, the LABC issued a certificate which implied a generic approval for the use of RS five thousand on buildings over eighteen meters in height. The certificate was effective from the twenty first of august twenty fourteen to until the twenty first of august twenty fifteen. It was accompanied by a drawing and document list. contents of the certificate are set out in chapter twenty four. The inquiry reiterate that it gave an untrue and misleading impression that RS five thousand was suitable for use on buildings over eighteen meters in height generally. Withdrawal and reissue of registered detail certificates for RS five thousand In early november twenty fourteen, Sam Lee Muller, a consult and technical administrator at LABC, sent an email to Jonathan Roper explaining that LABC had changed the format of its certificates and attaching the certificate for RS five thousand in the new style. The new certificate stated that it had first been issued on the twenty first of august twenty fourteen and was valid until twenty first of august twenty fifteen. It now stated on the first page that RS five thousand quote complies with BR one hundred thirty five for use in rain screen applications above eighteen meters in height, end quote. But referred the reader to the conditions of the certificate for more information. The conditions made clear that RS five thousand was acceptable for use on buildings above eighteen meters in height, quote, subject to matching the specification criteria of the BRE FIRE TEST Report two hundred nine five two five five carried out. End quote. Mr Roper forwarded that email to Miss Berger at Celitex, who was by then the product manager for RS five thousand. She responded to Miss Lee Mueller, seeking changes to the wording and attaching suggested text that removed the reference to the test report and repeated the claim that RS five thousand complied with BR one hundred thirty five, to the board being fixed to a non combustible substrate end quote. Referring to a BBA certificate that in fact related to R FR five thousand. Discussions about the suggested changes took place between Ms. Lee Muller, Mr Brennan and Mr Ewing throughout november twenty fourteen. Meanwhile, Ms. Berger had noticed on sixth of november twenty fourteen that the new style certificate was available on the LABC website and asked the LABC to limit access to it until the wording had been sorted out. Miss Lee Muller said she would check with her manager to see if they could prevent the page from being visible to the public and as a result access to it was withdrawn. On the twelfth of may twenty fifteen, Mr Ewing sent Miss Berger an email to which he attached a revised certificate. He explained there had been concern that earlier LABC certificates implied general approval for the use of thermosetting installation materials on buildings over eighteen meters in height. which he said had never been the intention. The draft doc the attached document was watermarked draft. The revised certificate under the heading description of product stated that RS five thousand had been assessed by BRE and quote complies with BR one hundred three five for use in rain screen applications above eighteen meters in height, subject to the board being fixed to a non combustible substrate. C condition of certificate for more information. The line under the heading conditions of certificate read quote. For use in rain screen wall constructions including above eighteen meters in height. down and within a different sub cap Further and within a different subparagraph, it read quote This classification is only valid for the system specification and detailing outlined in section two of the BRE classification report two nine five two five five. No one explain why that information had not been given greater prominence. Mr Ewing accepted that the certificate could have been drafted in a much clearer way to avoid confusion. The new style LABC certificate was eventually published on the tenth of september twenty fifteen. A further and final LAB certificate was issued on the nineteenth of august twenty sixteen in very similar terms to that which had been issued on the tenth of september twenty fifteen, save that it included details of the system which had been tested. The certificate was withdrawn on the sixteenth of june twenty seventeen in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. It was Mr Ewing's understanding that there had been no certificate for RS five thousand in place or available on LABC's website between november twenty fourteen and july twenty fifteen, but he could not be sure whether Celitex had been told that or that it had been told that it should not use the certificate that had been issued. He was unable to recall why he had sent an email to Miss Lee Muller on first of july twenty fifteen, asking her to check which certificate was publicly available. He could not state categorically that the certificate had been removed. In its written closing statement for Module 2, LABC referred to Miss Berger's email of 6th of november twenty fourteen as a request for the registration to be withdrawn, to which the LABC had acceded. However, the correspondence was not expressed in that way, and the inquiry have seen no evidence to suggest that Celitex was told that the certificate had been withdrawn. if the certificate had been removed, Celitex could not reasonably have understood that the That to have been the case from the messages they received from LABC. Although Mr Ewing sent the new style certificate to Celitex, the version held by LABC was still marked as a draft as late as may twenty fifteen. At no stage did LABC clearly state that the certificate issued in august twenty fourteen for RS five thousand was no longer valid and there was no formal process through which information of that kind could be expected to be communicated. In those circumstances, Mr Ewing's assumption that Celitex realized that a new certificate had been issued and would act with integrity by not relying on the old certificate knowing it had been changed was naive. Yet again, LABC failed to communicate properly with Celitex and failed to take proper steps to ensure that it understood that the previous certificate, which stated on its face that it was valid until august twenty fifteen, should not be used. There is no evidence that LABC took any steps to inform local authority building control departments or improved inspectors, in particular NHBC, that the old certificate could no longer be relied on. Plainly, it should have done so. that's it for chapter twenty five. The next episode will move on to chapter twenty six which looks at the National House Building Council, which has been referred to as the NHBC throughout this podcast.