Read on Twitter
Lunchtime update from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry:
- Govt officials warned about use of Kingspan insulation on high rises in 2014
- Kingspan accused of "lying" to them about testing which had been carried out on new 'trial product' - not material actually on market
- Govt officials warned about use of Kingspan insulation on high rises in 2014
- Kingspan accused of "lying" to them about testing which had been carried out on new 'trial product' - not material actually on market
We saw important new emails today which show Brian Martin (the official in charge of Approved Document B) was specifically and clearly warned about the use of K15 on high rises in summer 2014
In July 2014, he wrote to the NHBC saying "allegedly" PIR insulation had been used on buildings above 18m in height and asking for info. I think this follows a meeting about cladding risks from the same month, which I obtained the minutes of in 2018 https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/government-did-not-act-after-warning-about-grenfell-style-cladding-in-2014-minutes-reveal-57433
NHBC responded to Mr Martin with very detailed email outlining Kingspan's sale of its insulation to many blocks of flats, resulting from KS statement that the product was acceptable for use on high rises, and that fire and rescue service were "aware" (sorry
)
)
Millichap writes internally that the claims from NHBC were inaccurate and may need to be rebutted. Said firm's solicitor had been informed.
Shown email, only thing he can find which is inaccurate is description of Kingspan insulation as "polyurethene"
Shown email, only thing he can find which is inaccurate is description of Kingspan insulation as "polyurethene"
Kingspan then sends letter to NHBC demanding 14 days notice and citing successful tests earlier in the year. But the major problem with this is that these tests were on a 'trial product' not being sold and one was not even a pass
"What I'm going to suggest to you is it was a deliberate lie: all of this was a decision on part of Kingspan to deceive not just the NHBC and other professionals, but also DCLG?" asks Kate Grange QC.
Millichap says no - claims it was "always my belief that the trial product would eventually be launched and we worked on that basis". But he accepts he knew it was not being sold at that point and in the event was not launched.
So what about these tests? Kingspan's decision to run new testing on its K15 insulation came in 2014, following industry concerns that its use on tall buildings could not be justified by prior tests (see report from Tues) https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/kingspan-relied-on-trial-product-test-to-keep-selling-combustible-insulation-for-high-rises-inquiry-hears-68827
The first two tests the firm did (January and March 2014, with HPL cladding) both failed. But the second failure in March was pretty narrow - in fact it may have even be a pass under an earlier version of the testing criteria
Kingspan were miffed about this - they wanted it to be deemed a pass even though the rules had changed. Millichap wrote internally that he planned to "sow some seeds to influence that result" and if that failed "stronger tactics will be employed"
He then emails the BRE, cc-ing the company's lawyer, threatening that "we may have no other option" but to challenge if BRE deems the test a failure. In the event, BRE does deem it a failure. But we learned today Kingspan nonetheless used the data in future 'desktop studies'
(It was also one of the "successful tests" referred to in the letter to the NHBC above)
In July 2014, the company finally passes - using a system with terracotta cladding (the cladding partially collapsed, but this isn't enough to rank as a failure). But the insulation was a research and development product - not what was being sold
Nonetheless, this test pass is immediately used to start supporting the use of existing K15 before the new insulation product is sold (it had thicker foil and different chemicals to improve its fire performance). No one is told it the test was on an R&D product
"Mr Millichap, I would suggest to you this wasn't something that was overlooked, this was absolutely deliberate by Kingspan wasn't it?"
"It was absolutely our intention to transition to a new product at this time," he replies.
"It was absolutely our intention to transition to a new product at this time," he replies.
But this transition never happened - the new product was found to be impossible to make for commercial reasons and it was dropped.
There is a suggestion from internal emails that Mr Millichap pushed back on this. His colleagues celebrated the test result which "pissed over" their competitors, but complained "slap head" Millichap didn't want to market it
