Lunchtime update from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry:
BBA published 'materially wrong' certificate for cladding later used on Grenfell after Arconic 'stonewalled' their request for up to date information for 16 months
BBA published 'materially wrong' certificate for cladding later used on Grenfell after Arconic 'stonewalled' their request for up to date information for 16 months
Background: In 2007, the British Board of Agrement published a certificate which confirmed th cladding panels later used on Grenfell "may be regarded" as Class 0 - the standard in English regs at the time for high rises. You can read more about that here: insidehousing.co.uk/news/grenfell-…
This morning we've been hearing from Valentina Amoroso from the BBA, who reviewed the certificate in 2014/15.
This review was originally due to be done by January 2014 and the BBA began seeking the info necessary in October 2013:
This review was originally due to be done by January 2014 and the BBA began seeking the info necessary in October 2013:
After chasing for six months, it finally spoke to Arconic's Claude Wehrle in July. It asked for a series of things to be provided for the review, including "any details that would invalidate the certificate".
But it still got nothing back. Ms Amoroso picked the review process up in October 201t and began chasing. Again, she gets nothing back all the way through to January. After setting a 20 Jan deadline, the person she is dealing with simply passes her back to Mr Wehrle
And at this point she gave up. She stopped pushing for the requested details and told Arconic the BBA would review the certificate "from the information it already holds" and details available on the manufacturers website
"Did it not occur to you that Arconic, by not answering repeated requests for so long, were up to something?" asks Richard Millett QC.
Ms Amoroso says it was "not unusual" for certificate holders not to engage in a review process
Ms Amoroso says it was "not unusual" for certificate holders not to engage in a review process
We now know though that Arconic had carried out further testing on its product which meant it was classified either 'C' or 'E' to European standards depending on how it was fitted to a building. The BBA certificate was based on a test in which it had got a B.
Ms Amoroso completed her review without ever seeing this testing. She said she would only expect Arconic to have provided testing if they had changed the formulation of how they made the product and said she had no reason to be suspicious.
"Why was not receiving any data at all in response to repeated queries over 16 months not enough to feel that suspicion was justified?" asks Millett.
She said procedure was that certificates would only be suspended if factory visits were refused, and this was not the case
She said procedure was that certificates would only be suspended if factory visits were refused, and this was not the case
Asked if the lack of the tests which showed the panel achieving an E and a C made the certificate "materially wrong", she says yes.
This time period is especially significant, as it was March 2014 when the BBA certificate was provided to the team refurbishing Grenfell and between July and September when planners at RBKC signed off the decision to use the ACM. Ms Amoroso continues after lunch
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
