黑洞社区

A technical manager at Kingspan said that a facade engineering consultant could 鈥済o f鈥�#ck themselves鈥� after they raised doubts about the fire safety of a combustible insulation product later installed on Grenfell Tower, the inquiry has heard.

Philip Heath made the comments in a 2008 email to a friend after the specialist, Wintech, had advised contractor Bowmer & Kirkland that Kingspan鈥檚 Kooltherm K15 insulation was not suitable for a high rise project.

The contractor had sought assurances that the insulation was safe for use on a tower scheme it was working on, as the test report being used to market the product only applied to the specific set up which was tested.

Heath replied that K15 was 鈥渃lassified as class 0, or low risk,鈥� but Bowmer & Kirkland was not satisfied and had replied: 鈥淵ou have not substantiated 鈥� on what basis the Kooltherm K15 is suitable for buildings over 18m?鈥�

Heath forwarded this email to a friend, adding: 鈥淚 think Bowmer & Kirkland are getting me confused with someone who gives a dam. I鈥檓 trying to think of a way out of this one, imagine a fire running up this tower !!!!!鈥�!!!! Any ideas鈥�?鈥�

Bowmer & Kirkland had then sought advice from Wintech consultant Greg Sinclair, who told the contractor: 鈥淜ingspan keep repeating that the product鈥�is suitable for use in buildings over 18m. What they fail to say is that it is suitable only in the configuration tested.鈥�

When Wintech emailed Heath asking for further evidence that the insulation was safe for use on buildings taller than 18m, Heath told colleagues in an internal email: 鈥淲intech can go f鈥�#ck themselves, and if they are not careful we鈥檒l sue the a鈥�#se of [sic] them.鈥�

Inquiry barrister Kate Grange QC asked Heath: 鈥淐an you explain why you wrote that, given Wintech were giving entirely accurate advice to their customers?鈥�

Heath, who still works at Kingspan, replied: 鈥淚t was totally unprofessional and on reflection I wouldn鈥檛 have said that. I think it was frustration we were going around in circles with them.鈥�

He added: 鈥淲e were just going around in circles and a bit of frustration came out there on a Friday.鈥�

Asked by Grange if his responses 鈥渞eflected a culture within Kingspan at the time?鈥� he replied: 鈥淣o, I don鈥檛 believe so. Like any organisation you have your good times and difficult times.鈥� He added: 鈥淚 think we did take life safety seriously. We provided Wintech with the data we had for them to make the appropriate analysis.鈥�

He said that his earlier comments in an email forwarded from Bowmer & Kirkland to a friend were made because his friend had been terminally ill at the time and he was 鈥渏ust trying to lighten his load and lighten my load鈥�.

He apologised for the content of the email and added that he was trying to 鈥渢o show him what was going on at the time鈥�.

The inquiry has already heard how K15 had been marketed as suitable for a wide range of applications on buildings above 18m, despite only passing a 2005 fire test in a specific rig using a cement particle board cladding.

The inquiry has heard how firm then changed the chemical composition of the product, which was now dubbed 鈥渘ew technology鈥� K15, but had continued to use the test report of the older version of the product to classify it as safe for high rise projects.

When the 鈥榥ew technology鈥� K15 was tested in December 2007, it turned the test rig into a 鈥渞aging inferno鈥� which had to be extinguished by testing house the 黑洞社区 Research Establishment (BRE) out of fears that it would endanger the laboratory.

Heath admitted that 鈥渨ith hindsight鈥� the product should have been withdrawn from the market after this test failed.

The product was sold for over 14 years before Kingspan sent a letter to the BRE in October this year, which was seen by the inquiry, claiming that it was 鈥渘ow of the view鈥� that the product being sold was different to what had been tested.

But former Kingspan technical product manager Ivor Meredith told the inquiry last week that it had been 鈥渃ommon knowledge鈥� at the firm from 2006 onwards that the test report used to market the newer K15 as safe was from the older K15.

The inquiry also heard last week how Kingspan had threatened the National House 黑洞社区 Council, a building control body, with an injunction in February 2015 after it said it would start warning clients that K15 was not suitable for use on buildings above 18m unless it used the exact system which had passed the 2005 test.

In 2016, the NHBC published guidance confirming that K15 could in fact be used on buildings above 18m.

The insulation also received certification for use on high rise buildings by the Local Authority 黑洞社区 Control, which wrongly said that K15 held the status of limited combustibility needed for use above 18m.

The insulation was one of those used in the cladding system installed as part of Grenfell Tower鈥檚 refurbishment, which the first phase of the inquiry has found was the primary cause of the spread of the fire which killed 72 people in June 2017.

The inquiry continues.