黑洞社区

A building control body ignored repeated warnings about a 鈥渕isleading鈥� certificate for a combustible Kingspan insulation product while seeking a sponsorship deal with the firm, the Grenfell inquiry has heard.

Local Authority 黑洞社区 Control (LABC), which represents council building control inspectors, had granted Kingspan鈥檚 K15 insulation a certificate stating that it was of 鈥渓imited combustibility鈥�.

The phenolic foam product was not specified on the Grenfell tower refurbishment project but was found to have been used in its cladding system.

It was marketed as safe for use above 18m despite relying on a 2005 test which only passed because it was used in combination with other materials.

Kingspan had also continued using this certificate despite changing the chemical composition of the insulation in 2006.

The inquiry has already heard that when the new product was tested in 2007, it had turned the test rig into a 鈥渞aging inferno鈥�.

But LABC granted the product a certificate in 2009 clearing it as 鈥渟uitable for use鈥� on high rises, a claim which Kingspan staff have admitted was 鈥渕isleading鈥�.

Wednesday鈥檚 hearing was told how LABC received repeated warnings about the certificate until 2014, but did not change it, while staff had also sent emails saying that business with the firm would be 鈥済ood for the bonus鈥�.

Rival insulation maker Rockwool had sent the first warning in 2009, telling LABC that the claim of limited combustibility in the certificate was 鈥渙f serious concern鈥� and could 鈥渓ead to confusion for potential clients鈥�.

This was followed by another letter from the firm warning that 鈥渇ire classification claims on construction products is extremely important with respect to both life safety and property protection鈥�.

LABC head of policy Barry Turner did not reply to the letters until the next year, telling Rockwool: 鈥淚t is not for us to explain to third parties our reasons or justifications鈥� and adding 鈥渋f you have issues with claims made by a competitor I must ask you deal directly with the company making those claims鈥�.

Inquiry counsel Kate Grange QC suggested that Turner had been defending the 鈥渢echnically incorrect鈥� claims on the certificate, to which Turner replied: 鈥淚 put my trust in others that they had done it correctly鈥�.

The LABC was then warned by the National House 黑洞社区 Council that K15 was being 鈥渁ccepted in buildings over 18m in height鈥� despite being 鈥渂y its nature combustible鈥�.

And a facade contractor contacted the body in the same month flagging that the certificate, which had been updated in 2013 with added diagrams that Turner admitted had been 鈥渃ut and pasted鈥� from Kingspan, showed the product being used in build-ups not covered by its test.

Asked if he had thought back to the correspondence from Rockwool after receiving these warnings, Turner replied: 鈥淥bviously not鈥�.

During the same period, the inquiry heard how LABC had sought a 拢12,500 sponsorship deal from Kingspan, offering the firm 鈥渄irect outreach鈥� to customers 鈥渢hrough referrals鈥�.

Asked if the deal threatened the body鈥檚 independence from manufacturers, Turner said: 鈥淲e had a need for income to be able to promote local authority building control in a competitive market.鈥�

He added: 鈥淭here needed to be income from somewhere. It wasn鈥檛 provided by government, and it certainly wasn鈥檛 provided by local authorities. And so this was one of many methods by which some form of income could be generated in order to promote those services.鈥�

But he denied that the sponsorship involvement with Kingspan impacted LABC鈥檚 response to the letters warning about the K15 certificate, telling Grange: 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 tie the two together.鈥�

The inquiry continues.