黑洞社区

The technical services manager at the makers of one of the insulation products used on the fatal refurbishment of Grenfell Tower had not seen the test reports of the combustible product on which he was advising the industry, the inquiry has heard.

Andrew Pack, who worked as Kingspan鈥檚 global technical support manager, admitted yesterday that the fire test reports for the firm鈥檚 K15 insulation were 鈥渒ept secret鈥� by those who were undertaking the tests.

The evidence, which is now being heard remotely, came on the first day of hearings for nearly two months after the inquiry wrapped early for Christmas because of a covid positive among the inquiry team and the imposition of a third lockdown in England last month.

Pack, who now works as Kingspan鈥檚 global technical support manager based in the Middle East, has worked at the firm for nearly 30 years in a series of advisory roles responding to customer enquiries about the firm鈥檚 products, including K15. From 2010 onwards, he said he had no involvement in K15 enquiries as the focus of his role had moved away from the UK.

In his witness statement, he said that he had not seen any test reports of Kingspan鈥檚 products from 2005 onwards and was 鈥渘ever expected to understand the content of or to comment upon test reports鈥�.

Asked by inquiry counsel Rachel Troup if he had ever read during the period from 2001 to 2010 any BS 8414 test report for a system which included K15, Pack replied: 鈥淣o.鈥�

He said that there was 鈥渁 team that do fire testing, and those fire tests were very much kept within that small team. They were not something that were released out on a daily basis [sic].鈥�

He added: 鈥淲e didn鈥檛 know when we鈥檇 failed, we didn鈥檛 know when we passed, until it was disclosed to us. So it was very rare to see a test report.鈥�

Troup then asked Pack if it was fair to say that the test reports were 鈥渁lmost kept secret鈥� to which Pack replied: 鈥淵es, correct.鈥�

He added: 鈥淚 believe that culture is still today, within many businesses. I mean, you鈥檒l have to ask the question of the people who do these tests: why are the tests kept where they are? 

鈥淭hroughout my career at Kingspan, when people do fire testing, it has been the case that those test reports have been kept within the people that do that testing.鈥�

Despite claiming he had asked why the test reports were not shared, he admitted that he could not recall what the answer was.

The inquiry heard last year how Kingspan鈥檚 K15 product, which was never specified for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower but was found after the 2017 fire to be included in its cladding system, had been marketed using a test report of a chemically different product for nearly 15 years.

An older version of the product dubbed 鈥渙ld technology鈥� K15 had passed a fire test in 2005 but the following year this version of the product had then been swapped with a newer version which was 鈥渜uicker and more cost-effective to produce鈥�.

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

Despite the failed test, Kingspan continued marketing 鈥渘ew technology鈥� K15 as safe for use on buildings taller than 18m on the basis of the 2005 test and only withdrew the test report in October last year, writing in a letter to the BRE that it was 鈥渘ow of the view that there are sufficient differences鈥� between what had been tested and what was being sold.

The inquiry was also shown newly disclosed emails yesterday relating to a certificate that Kingspan had obtained from the Local Authority 黑洞社区 Control (LABC), a body representing building control inspectors at local councils which also issued certificates to product manufacturers for other inspectors to rely on.

The certificate stated that K15 could be considered as a 鈥渕aterial of limited combustibility,鈥� the minimum standard in official guidance needed for an insulation product to be considered safe to use on high rise buildings.

Pack told the inquiry how he was asked by the Kingspan鈥檚 then-technical manager Philip Heath to obtain an LABC certificate for K15 in November 2008 after the firm had secured one for another of its products.

The inquiry heard that to discuss obtaining the certificate, Pack held meetings with David Jones, an inspector at Herefordshire council who had not been trained in how the rules applied to high rise buildings as there were no buildings of this type in the county.

When Jones sent over a draft certificate in March 2009, Heath wrote: 鈥淢ake no mistake, this document could be GOLD鈥� Please progress this ASAP to the next stage鈥� Peddle to the floor.鈥�

When a final draft of the certificate was sent to Kingspan in May which stated that K15 could be considered a material of 鈥渓imited combustibility,鈥� Heath reacted by writing: 鈥溾�淔ANBLOODYTASTIC.鈥�

But K15, which was composed of a combustible plastic foam, could never have obtained this standard.

Last year, the inquiry was shown emails from the National House 黑洞社区 Council which called the LABC certificate 鈥済arbage鈥� adding: 鈥淗ereford LABC didn鈥檛 know what they were talking about.鈥�

A spokesperson for Kingspan in December said: 鈥淜ingspan condemns unreservedly any actions that do not demonstrate a proper commitment to fire safety.鈥�

The inquiry into the fire which killed 72 people continues.