Thread by @PeteApps

In August, a tribunal issued the first remediation order against the freeholder in a major step for the new building safety legislation. The judgement is important and you can read it here:

But I want to talk about something else: the expert witness 🧵 assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d9ebc6…

He is named as 'Mr Brian Martin of DCCH Experts LLP'.

As many of you will know, a Brian Martin was arguably the key witness during the Grenfell Tower Inquiry - the government official who missed multiple critical opportunities to tighten building safety guidance.

So is this the same man? One source with knowledge of the proceedings has told me it is. Others have told me Mr Martin left government to work as an expert witness. There are no registered fire engineers with the same name. But no one involved in the case is willing to confirm.

While being described here as a "fire safety engineer", Mr Martin told the Inquiry in March 2022 that he had no fire safety qualifications beyond his original professional training as a building control officer.

The company which appointed 'Brian Martin' as an expert witness for the freeholder was DCCH - a consultancy established by former BRE staffers Ciara Holland and David Crowder. Mr Crowder wrote a report for government in April 2016 (a year before Grenfell)...

... into the risk of external fire spread which said there was no major need for changes to regulations or guidance, stating that “there is currently no evidence from these investigations to suggest that the current recommendations… are failing in their purpose”

The tribunal judgement praised 'Brian Martin's' expert evidence, saying he had “provided independent and unbiased evidence” and “came across as being balanced, knowledgeable and thoughtful.” It did disagree with him on one point...

... which was that the building (an office to resi conversion in South London with dangerous ACM cladding, combustible Kingspan insulation and other defects) did not need the Kingspan insulation removed, so long as the cladding was replaced.

The tribunal said this "could only be achieved if there was excellent installation and supervision of the insulation, cavity barriers and rainscreen cladding. The Tribunal has no confidence that the required level of excellence could be achieved.”

For those who don't know about Mr Martin's role in the build up to the fire, they included not producing an FAQ making it clear that the cladding later used on Grenfell was banned, after industry warnings that it was in use in the UK market

Asked why not, he told the inquiry he “forgot” to do so because he was “busy on other things”. One witness said he stated "there is going to be a major fire" as he left this meeting (he said this was not a reference to ACM)

After the coroner investigating six deaths at Lakanal House recommended the retrofit of sprinklers and a review of building safety guidance to prevent further deaths, he advised taking less drastic action as: “We only have a duty to respond to the coroner, not kiss her backside.”

He admitted not alerting his superiors to a "red alert" warning in January 2016 that ACM cladding was being widely used in the UK, and admitted assurances he gave that cladding was banned "lulled [his seniors] into a false sense of security"

He dismissed the recommendations of a fire safety campaigner as not “necessarily be in the best interests of UK Plc” and told the inquiry that if someone who made life safety an "absolute priority" wrote regulations "We’d all starve to death"

Days after the fire, he also helped draft a letter which told the industry government guidance banned all combustible cladding products - something he admitted under cross examination was "a false representation", but denied was a "a planned, deliberate and underhanded attempt...

"...to rewrite history in the light of the [Grenfell fire] in order to protect the government’s position after the event?”

At the end of his evidence, he said he was "bitterly sorry" as “there were a number of occasions where I could have potentially prevented” the fire.

He was also accused by two witnesses of using the phrase "show me the bodies" to justify a lack of action on fire safety - as there were not enough people dying to justify new burdens on industry. He denied using this phrase when asked.

Now - it at least appears and has not been denied by DCCH or lawyers representing Kedai Ltd - this man is now selling his services as an expert to companies which own buildings with this dangerous cladding and don't want to pay to remove it

You can read more about Brian Martin's role in the fire and his evidence here:

And here:
insidehousing.co.uk/insight/grenfe…
insidehousing.co.uk/insight/grenfe…