黑洞社区

The director of Grenfell Tower cladding contractor Harley Facades has insisted his firm did not bear ultimate responsibility for the flaws in the block鈥檚 refurbishment that led to 2017鈥檚 tragic fire.

Ray Bailey, boss of Harley Facades, told the inquiry into the disaster 鈥� which claimed 72 lives 鈥� that his firm was just one of a 鈥渞aft of layers鈥� with design safety input on the project, that included project architect Studio E, fire consultant Exova and Kensington and Chelsea council鈥檚 building control officers.

In his first day of evidence to the inquiry, Bailey was quizzed about his experience with high-rise cladding, his knowledge of product safety and his familiarity with 黑洞社区 Regulations and in particular Approved Document B.

Bailey was asked by inquiry barrister Richard Millett QC whether he accepted that as a specialist subcontractor responsible for design, supply and fix of the fa莽ade on the Grenfell Tower project 鈥渢he buck stopped with Harley on products and design鈥�. He replied: 鈥淣o.鈥�

Millett asked whether Harley had been reliant on building control officers to make sure its systems were compliant with regulations.

Bailey replied: 鈥淯ltimately, yes. [鈥�] We have our designs and the expertise is in the cladding and how it鈥檚 attached to the building, how we get it to site on time, how we make it fit. On particular items, where we鈥檙e not entirely clear, we ask questions of the architect, of the specialist, of building control, to ensure that it complies.鈥�

Under further questioning, Bailey said: 鈥淲e are not statutory compliance experts, so when we have a doubt about how something is done, we seek guidance and building control are the experts on compliance.鈥�

Tuesday鈥檚 hearing was told that Harley Facades and Bailey鈥檚 earlier business Harley Curtain Wall 鈥� which went into administration in 2015 鈥� never had a formal contract with Grenfell refurbishment main contractor Rydon. Instead, the firm鈥檚 scope of work was covered by a letter of intent.

Millett asked Bailey whether he had understood at the time that the letter of intent effectively gave Harley the same obligations to project client Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation in relation to the cladding design and product compliance that Rydon had to the TMO. Bailey said he did not.

鈥淐an we proceed on the basis that Harley鈥檚 involvement in this project proceeded without any familiarity at all with what Rydon had promised it would do for the TMO?鈥� Millett asked. Bailey replied: 鈥淐orrect.鈥�

Bailey was asked why he had signed a collateral warranty on the project in 2016 that described Harley as the 鈥渄esign subcontractor鈥� if he wasn鈥檛 happy with the description.

He said he was 鈥渘ot entirely鈥� happy with the label but Rydon 鈥渟uggested that if we didn鈥檛 sign it, we wouldn鈥檛 get our final payment鈥�.

Earlier in the day, Bailey was asked whether it was Harley鈥檚 responsibility to check the fa莽ade drawings it received from project architect Studio E for compliance with statutory requirements.

鈥淵es, but not in isolation,鈥� he replied. He added: 鈥淲hen we received drawings, the drawings from Studio E, and they were issued to us, they鈥檙e RIBA stage E.

鈥淭he expectation is that the design is compliant and we then are producing the production version of the architect鈥檚 design.鈥�

Bailey was asked how Harley would satisfy itself that products to be used as part of a fa莽ade system were safe.

He said that when the firm had used a product before and had all the British Board of Agr茅ment (BBA) certificates for it, the checks would be 鈥渧ery quick鈥�.

He added that in the case of products that had not been used before 鈥� such as the Celotex RS 5000 insulation specified for the Grenfell refurbishment 鈥� extensive checks would be conducted.

鈥淐elotex made a big, big deal about their products being suitable, specifically designed for buildings over 18m鈥� they complied with BS8414,鈥� he said.

鈥淎nd then they used the term, which is very misleading looking back on it, 鈥楥lass O鈥� throughout.

鈥淲e not only read the literature; we had their technical sales manager in to go through the project.

鈥淲e sent drawings with the application, showing the ACM on the building to them. And I think we carried out all possible reasonable tests; Celotex was produced by a huge multinational company.

鈥淲e didn鈥檛 believe for one second that they would attempt to mislead us on this.鈥�

The first phase of the Grenfell inquiry found that aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding panels 鈥� which had polyethylene cores 鈥� fitted to the block were the principal reason that fire spread so rapidly on 14 June 2017.

However, the presence of polyisocyanurate (PIR) and phenolic foam insulation boards behind the ACM panels, and as components of the window surrounds, 鈥渃ontributed to the rate and extent of vertical flame spread鈥�.

Celotex RS5000 is a PIR board that was described by its manufacturer as having a Class O or 鈥渓imited combustibility鈥� rating. In 2018, BRE said Celotex had 鈥渋dentified anomalies鈥� with the tests on which RS5000鈥檚 .

Also on Tuesday, Millett asked Bailey whether he had been aware of a spate of cladding-related fires on high-rise buildings in the United Arab Emirates in 2012 and 2013.

鈥淭he fires that happened abroad were not reported, so we weren鈥檛 aware of those,鈥� he said.

Bailey disagreed with the proposition that as a specialist cladding contractor Harley should have been aware of the dangers associated with ACM panels that the fires illustrated.

The inquiry continues.