Chapter 25: Certification of Celotex RS5000 by LABC

Chapter 25: Certification of Celotex RS5000 by LABC

Initial contact with LABC

¶25.1 On 29 October 2013, Jonathan Roper, Celotex's Product Manager, spoke to Cathal Brennan, LABC's Technical Co-ordinator about the possibility of obtaining an LABC certificate for RS5000. Mr Brennan informed his colleague David Ewing, the manager of LABC's Registered Details Approval scheme,^16091609 Ewing {LABC0020139/4} page 4, paragraph 7.6. of the conversation by email, telling him that Mr Roper had asked a number of questions about a competitor (by which he subsequently confirmed he meant Kingspan) and LABC's relationship with it.^16101610 {LABC0008417}.

¶25.2 Celotex saw obtaining an LABC Registered Details Certificate as an important step in promoting RS5000,^16111611 Roper {Day72/26:9-16}. in part because it would protect its use from the risk of challenge by building control officers.^16121612 Roper {Day71/35:11-16}; {Day72/44:15-22}. Indeed, marketing material sent by LABC to Celotex included the claim that it could be considered a "fast track" through building control because, once it had been approved, local authority building control departments would not have to repeat the process.^16131613 {CEL00010021/1}.

¶25.3 Mr Roper subsequently met Mr Ewing on 18 November 2013 at Celotex's offices to discuss the process of obtaining an LABC certificate. Mr Ewing understood that Celotex wanted a certificate to enable the product to compete with Kingspan K15.^16141614 Ewing {Day218/143:1-11}. He was not aware at that stage that RS5000 was the same as FR5000; he had believed that Celotex had been developing a new product.^16151615 Ewing {Day218/143:12-20}.

¶25.4 At the meeting, Mr Roper questioned whether Kingspan K15 could be described as a material of limited combustibility (as it was in the LABC certificate then in force).^16161616 Ewing {Day218/147:18-20}. Mr Ewing was not able to answer that question, given his lack of knowledge at the time, so he asked David Jones, who had carried out the research leading to the issue of the certificate relating to K15.^16171617 Ewing {Day218/147:22}-{Day218/148:4}.

¶25.5 On 19 December 2013 Mr Ewing sent Mr Jones an email seeking his assistance with Celotex's question.^16181618 {LABC0005339}. On 20 December 2013 Mr Jones responded, referring Mr Ewing to section 7 of the BBA certificate relating to K15, an extract from Kingspan's technical literature and LABC's internal assessment. Mr Jones told him that as K15 was described as Class 0, it could be termed a material of limited combustibility and so was suitable for use on buildings over 18 metres in height in accordance with Approved Document B. That was a fundamental misunderstanding on his part^16191619 Chapter 5. and none of the material Mr Jones relied on supported that conclusion. Mr Ewing told us that he had not been sure that that answered his question, but he assumed that that was due to his own lack of understanding.^16201620 Ewing {Day218/150:11-24}. Nevertheless, he did not seek help from anyone else in attempting to understand it.^16211621 Ewing {Day218/151:5-11}. Mr Ewing passed the substance of Mr Jones's response on to Mr Roper on 2 January 2014.^16221622 {LABC0001706}. Mr Roper replied on 3 January 2014, stating that Celotex was confident that it could also prove that RS5000 was classified as Class 0.^16231623 {LABC0001706}. He realised that LABC had made a fundamental mistake but thought that it was viewed as advantageous to Celotex and therefore did not correct Mr Ewing.^16241624 Roper {Day72/32:15}-{Day72/33:23}.

158

Registered Detail 491

¶25.6 Following the test in accordance with BS 8414-2:2005, on 2 May 2014, Mr Roper contacted Mr Ewing again on 15 May 2014 to confirm that Celotex wanted to pursue an application for an LABC Registered Details Certificate.^16251625 {LABC0001706}. Tim Bartlett of West Suffolk District Council had been identified by LABC as a suitable person to assess the product because he was on LABC's registration and partnerships group and regularly involved in peer reviews, but no steps had been taken to ascertain his level of understanding of Approved Document B.^16261626 Ewing {Day218/153:16}-{Day218/154:10}.

¶25.7 Mr Bartlett visited Celotex's office^16271627 {LABC0000279}. during the week of 9 June 2014 to discuss the application. Following his visit, Mr Roper provided what he called the "first batch" of information to support the application and set out the wording that Celotex was seeking to have included in the certificate.^16281628 {LABC0000279}. It read as follows:

" – Celotex RS5000 can be used with a variety of cladding systems (including masonry or rainscreen systems) and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry. … – Celotex RS5000 has successfully tested to BS 8414:2 2005, meets the criteria set out in BR 135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with storeys above 18m in height (subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate) alternative compliance to AD B. – The product has Class 0 fire performance."

¶25.8 That description of RS5000's fire performance had been taken almost directly from Appendix A to the Registered Details certificate for K15.^16291629 {LABC0001001/2}; Roper {Day72/41:4-24}. Mr Ewing thought he had realised at the time that Celotex was effectively seeking the same broad statements that had been made in respect of Kingspan K15.^16301630 Ewing {Day218/155:11-25}.

¶25.9 Mr Roper sent a further email to Mr Bartlett on 17 June 2014 providing a copy of a letter from BRE confirming that a system incorporating RS5000 had been tested in accordance with BS 8414-2 and that a test report and classification document under BR 135 was being issued.^16311631 {LABC0000329/3}. The letter did not give any details about the system that had been tested, nor did it say what conclusions BRE had drawn when classifying it.^16321632 {LABC0000285}.

159

¶25.10 Notwithstanding that, on 30 June 2014 Mr Bartlett sent an email to Mr Brennan telling him that that was his last day at West Suffolk and that although he had not been able to finalise Celotex's certificate pending provision of further information, once that information was available he expected it to satisfy the requirements.^16331633 {LABC0000306}. Among the information that was yet to be received was the BR 135 classification report from BRE.^16341634 Ewing {Day218/158:3-11}. Mr Bartlett attached to his email a draft Compliance Declaration form, Drawing and Documents List and a briefing note which stated:

"Celotex RS5000 has been successfully tested to BS 8414:2 2005, meets the criteria set out in BR135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with storeys above 18m in height (subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate) alternative to compliance to AD B."^16351635 {LABC0000345/2}.

¶That was the very wording that had been requested by Jonathan Roper and was used by Celotex as a central plank of its marketing strategy. By suggesting, and then relying on, untrue and misleading statements of that kind it hoped to avoid challenge by building control officers.^16361636 Roper {Day72/44:15}-{Day72/45:6}; {Day72/46:15-18}. However, a statement that Celotex RS5000 had been successfully tested to BS 8414 and met the criteria set out in BR 135 could never properly be made, since such claims could be made only in relation to the system as a whole and not in relation to individual components. It is remarkable that LABC saw fit to prepare a draft of that kind without having seen the classification report itself. Its approach was fundamentally flawed.^16371637 Ewing {Day218/158:12-16}. However, at the time no one at LABC challenged Mr Bartlett's approach or the claims made about the product's performance. Mr Ewing accepted that he might have been under the misapprehension at the time that if a product had formed part of a system which had obtained a classification report in accordance with BR 135, it could be used on any buildings above 18 metres in height.^16381638 Ewing {Day218/158:17-21}.

¶25.11 In the event, despite having left West Suffolk, Mr Bartlett continued to be involved in the assessment process for RS5000. On 24 July 2014, he sent an email to Mr Brennan (with a copy to Mr Ewing) attaching further documents for the RS5000 certificate and indicating that it was ready for peer review.^16391639 {LABC0000339}. Among the attachments to that email were BRE's letter of 17 June 2014^16401640 {LABC0000342}. and a Class 0 classification report for RS5000 dated 14 July 2014.^16411641 {LABC0000344}. No BR 135 classification report was attached, not least since LABC had not received one. Further, none of the attachments described the system that had been tested or how it had performed against the criteria in BR 135. Mr Bartlett told Mr Ewing that Celotex was still waiting for the test report but had provided the letter from BRE in the hope that LABC would accept it as sufficient proof of compliance.^16421642 {LABC0005566}.

¶25.12 On the same day, Mr Brennan circulated the Compliance Declaration, Drawings and Document List and details of RS5000 to the peer review group.^16431643 {LABC0005564}. Mr Bartlett responded the same day, attaching a draft certificate,^16441644 {LABC0000369}. the wording of which stated that RS5000 was suitable for use on buildings over 18 metres in height.^16451645 {LABC0000370}.

160

¶25.13 On 8 August 2014, Mr Ewing sent an email to Cathal Brennan and Sam Li Muller noting that Celotex had still not provided a BR 135 classification report.^16461646 {LABC0005598}. He observed that that was an important document as LABC was under scrutiny from NHBC regarding its certification of Kingspan K15.^16471647 As to that, see Chapter 23. He said that the certificate for RS5000 should not be issued until the report had been received.^16481648 {LABC0005598}.

¶25.14 Later that day, an LABC employee, Robert Adungo, sent an email to Mr Brennan noting that Celotex's publicity for the launch of RS5000 included the claim that it was "supported by LABC approval". That was not correct, because LABC had not issued a certificate. Nonetheless, Mr Brennan told Celotex that it could refer to LABC at the product launch, presumably in a way that implied that LABC had approved, or was going to approve, the product.^16491649 {LABC0005601}. Mr Brennan said that he had acted on the basis of a misunderstanding of BRE's letter of the 17 June 2014 and on the fact that RS5000 had received four votes at the peer review stage.^16501650 {LABC0005601}. However, the holding letter from BRE did not provide any basis for a claim of that kind and those who carried out the peer review had not themselves been provided with a classification report and so had no basis for reaching any final view about the product's compliance with the statutory guidance.^16511651 Ewing {Day218/175:18}-{Day218/176:9}. That was plainly not an acceptable approach.^16521652 Ewing {Day218/172:18-23}.

¶25.15 Mr Ewing sent an email to Mr Roper shortly after, asking for the classification report.^16531653 {LABC0000288/2}. Mr Roper responded, attaching a copy of the BR 135 classification report.^16541654 {LABC0000288}; {LABC0000289}. Mr Ewing sent it on to Mr Brennan, with the comment that it contained everything needed to satisfy the criteria in paragraphs 12.5 and 12.6 of Approved Document B. However, in saying that Mr Ewing was still labouring under the misapprehension that the classification report provided some form of general support for the use of RS5000 on buildings over 18 metres in height, which was not the case.^16551655 Ewing {Day218/178:15-17}. The question put to Mr Ewing referred to K15 but was clearly intended to refer to RS5000.

¶25.16 Despite having been alerted to the fact that Celotex's marketing and promotional materials included a claim that RS5000 had its approval, notwithstanding that it had not issued a certificate for the product, LABC did not attempt to make Celotex correct that statement or remonstrate with it for making a misleading claim.^16561656 Ewing {Day218/180:4-11}.

¶25.17 On 11 August 2014, Mr Bartlett confirmed that, having seen the classification report, everything appeared to be in order, although he noted that it related to the particular system tested rather than the use of RS5000 on buildings over 18 metres in height generally. He therefore questioned whether the certificate should be limited to the specific system tested.^16571657 {LABC0005608}. In response, Mr Ewing confirmed that the certificate should relate to what had been tested,^16581658 {LABC0005608}. but then expressed the view that the rainscreen construction was relatively standard, a comment for which, as he accepted, there had been no basis.^16591659 Ewing {Day218/181:21-24}. Despite that fact, the LABC issued a certificate which implied generic approval for the use of RS5000 on buildings over 18 metres in height.^16601660 {LABC0000360}, {LABC0000361} and {LABC0000362}. The certificate was effective from 21 August 2014 until 21 August 2015.^16611661 {LABC0000358} and {LABC0000359}. It was accompanied by a Drawing and Document List. The contents of the certificate are set out in detail in Chapter 24. We reiterate that it gave an untrue and misleading impression that RS5000 was suitable for use on buildings over 18 metres in height generally.

161

Withdrawal and reissue of registered detail certificates for RS5000

¶25.18 In early November 2014, Sam Li Muller, a Consult and Technical Administrator at LABC, sent an email to Jonathan Roper explaining that LABC had changed the format of its certificates and attaching the certificate for RS5000 in the new style.^16621662 {CEL00002021/2}. The new certificate stated that it had first been issued on 21 August 2014 and was valid until 21 August 2015.^16631663 {LABC0000312}. It now stated on the first page that RS5000 "complies with BR 135 for use in rainscreen applications above 18 metres in height", but referred the reader to the conditions of the certificate for more information. The conditions made clear that RS5000 was acceptable for use on buildings above 18 metres in height, "subject to matching the specification criteria of the BRE fire test report 295255 carried out".^16641664 {LABC0000312/2}

¶25.19 Mr Roper forwarded that email to Ms Berger at Celotex,^16651665 {CEL00002021}. who was by then the product manager for RS5000. She responded to Ms Li Muller seeking changes to the wording and attaching suggested text that removed the reference to the test report and repeated the claim that RS5000 complied with BR 135 "subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate", referring to a BBA certificate that in fact related to FR5000.^16661666 {CEL00002022}.

¶25.20 Discussions about the suggested changes took place between Ms Li Muller, Mr Brennan and Mr Ewing throughout November 2014.^16671667 {LABC0002803}; {LABC0001780}. Meanwhile, Ms Berger had noticed on 6 November 2014 that the new-style certificate was available on the LABC website and asked the LABC to limit access to it until the wording had been sorted out.^16681668 {CEL00008691/2} Ms Li Muller said she would check with her manager to see if they could prevent the page from being visible to the public and as a result access to it was withdrawn.

¶25.21 On 12 May 2015 Mr Ewing sent Ms Berger an email to which he attached a revised certificate.^16691669 {LABC0000332}. He explained there had been concern that earlier LABC certificates implied general approval for the use of thermosetting insulation materials on buildings over 18 metres in height, which he said had never been the intention.^16701670 {LABC0000332}. The attached document was watermarked "Draft".^16711671 {LABC0000333}.

¶25.22 The revised certificate, under the heading "Description of Product", stated that RS5000 had been assessed by BRE and "complies with BR135 for use in rainscreen applications above 18 metres in height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate *see condition of certificate for more information".^16721672 {LABC0000321}. The first line under the heading "Conditions of Certificate" read "For use in rainscreen wall constructions including above 18m in height". Further down and within a different sub-paragraph it read "This classification is only valid for the system specification and detailing outlined in section 2 of the BRE classification report 295255…".^16731673 {LABC0000321}. No one could explain why that information had not been given greater prominence. Mr Ewing accepted that the certificate could have been drafted in a much clearer way to avoid confusion.^16741674 Ewing {Day218/201:1-6}.

162

¶25.23 The new-style LABC certificate was eventually published on 10 September 2015.^16751675 {LABC0000321}; Ewing {Day218/201:7-10}. A further (and final) LABC certificate was issued on 19 August 2016 in very similar terms to that which had been issued on 10 September 2015, save that it included details of the system which had been tested.^16761676 {LABC0000337}. That certificate was withdrawn on 16 June 2017 in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire.^16771677 {LABC0020139/48}

¶25.24 It was Mr Ewing's understanding that there had been no certificate for RS5000 in place or available on LABC's website between November 2014 and July 2015, but he could not be sure whether Celotex had been told that or that it had been told that it should not use the certificate that had been issued.^16781678 Ewing {Day218/194:21}-{Day218/195:17}. He was unable to recall why he had sent an email to Ms Li Muller on 1 July 2015 asking her to check which certificate was publicly available.^16791679 {LABC0000330}. He could not state categorically that the certificate had been removed.^16801680 Ewing {Day218/203:16}-{Day218/204:5}. In its written closing statement for Module 2, LABC referred to Ms Berger's email of 6 November 2014 as a request for the registration to be withdrawn,^16811681 Phase 2 Module 2 Closing Submissions {LABC0019740/28} page 28, paragraph 73. to which the LABC had acceded. However, the correspondence was not expressed in that way and we have seen no evidence to suggest that Celotex was told that the certificate had been withdrawn.

¶25.25 Even if the certificate had been removed, Celotex could not reasonably have understood that to have been the case from the messages they received from LABC. Although Mr Ewing sent the 'new style' certificate to Celotex, the version held by LABC was still marked as a draft as late as May 2015. At no stage did LABC clearly state that the certificate issued in August 2014 for RS5000 was no longer valid and there was no formal process through which information of that kind could be expected to be communicated.^16821682 Ewing {Day218/205:2}-{Day218/206:8}.

¶25.26 In those circumstances, Mr Ewing's assumption that Celotex realised that a new certificate had been issued and would act with integrity by not relying on the old certificate, knowing it had been changed,^16831683 Ewing {Day218/195:11-17}. was naïve. Yet again, LABC failed to communicate properly with Celotex and failed to take proper steps to ensure that it understood that the previous certificate (which stated on its face that it was valid until August 2015) should not be used. There is no evidence that LABC took any steps to inform local authority building control departments or approved inspectors (in particular NHBC) that the old certificate could no longer be relied on. Plainly, it should have done so.

163