Rydon’s project manager for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was unable to explain the presence of “shockingly poor workmanship” of cavity barriers in the cladding system installed on the building at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry today.
Simon O’Connor, who was the onsite project manager for lead contractor Rydon, was shown images of cavity barriers that failed to close the gap between the cladding panels installed on the building and the insulation.
Post-fire inspections have shown that cavity barriers – installed to stop fire ripping through the gap – were fitted upside down, vertically instead of horizontally, and were cut to the wrong size.
“If cavity barriers were placed in different locations from those shown on the design drawings, do you agree that would be defective workmanship… and it would be defective workmanship which Rydon would be responsible for identifying and ensuring was rectified?” asked Richard Millett QC, counsel for the inquiry, today.
“Yes, as well as the clerk of works and building control and everyone else,” replied Mr O’Connor. He said he was not made aware of any concerns relating to the cavity barriers.
The cladding system was designed by sub-contractor Harley Facades, with the specific barriers in question installed after Mr O’Connor left the project.
“In his witness statement Mr Ben Bailey of Harley’s said that he was shocked by the photos in this report. Are you shocked?” Mr Millett asked.
“Yes,” replied Mr O’Connor.
“Do you know – and I know you weren’t there at the time – how such shockingly poor workmanship was allowed to happen unchecked, can you give us any insight into that?” Mr Millett asked.
Mr O’Connor replied: “I can’t because I wasn’t there so I can’t comment on what was going when I wasn’t present.”
Mr O’Connor had explained that work by Harley Facades was reviewed by Rydon against design drawings after completion, which was supposed to detect any “snagging” defects.
A former plasterer, Mr O’Connor moved up the ranks at Rydon after joining the company in 2002, and was carrying out his first job as project manager on the Grenfell Tower project.
Asked if he was given “any guidance about what you should be doing or what documents you should be looking at” in his role, he replied “no”.
A CV provided to Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) – the company that managed the tower on behalf of the council – as part of Rydon’s tender process claimed that Mr O’Connor was able to “co-ordinate design” and assist with value engineering. He said today that he had no experience of either and would not have been qualified to do so.
He left the project in July 2015 after he was offered a job elsewhere. Asked about this today, he said: “We had fallen behind programme… We were working extremely long days, there was a lot of pressure, it was affecting my home life. When I was given the opportunity to leave for another job offering more money… I couldn’t turn it down.”
Mr O’Connor was granted vulnerable witness status by inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick, which meant his face did not appear on the live stream of the hearings today.
The inquiry saw an email from Claire Williams, project manager at KCTMO, sent in April 2015 asking Mr O’Connor to provide “the fire rating of the cladding and fixings”.
This was in relation to a fire risk assessment Mr O’Connor had carried out for the site. Ms Williams followed this email up in June 2015, marking the subject header as “URGENT, URGENT, URGENT”.
Mr O’Connor said that he did not recall what he did with the email, but that he thought he would have forwarded it to the architects. There is no record of him doing so.
Asked about the process of checking materials coming to the site to ensure they were correct, he said that this was left to specialist sub-contractors and he only monitored for the time of arrival.
“We were using tried and tested sub-contractors, there was a bit of trust there,” he said.
The question was raised in the context of the decision to switch from Celotex RS5000 insulation, as specified, for Kingspan Kooltherm K15, which was not specified, for some of the tower’s lower floors. Both products are combustible.
Following his manager Simon Lawrence yesterday telling the inquiry that residents who complained about safety were “vocal and aggressive”, Mr O’Connor was shown an email in which he referred to one flat as a “problem property” after a complaint from the resident.
“He will shout it from the rooftops if not resolved properly,” he wrote.
Asked what he meant by this, he said it was in reference to the fact that the leaseholder had carried out work on his flat, which made completing the refurbishment more difficult.
The inquiry continues on Monday with further evidence from Rydon witnesses.
Week one: A vivid picture of a broken industry
After a week of damning revelations at the opening of phase two of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week two: What is the significance of the immunity application?
Sir Martin Moore-Bick has written to the attorney general requesting protection for those set to give evidence at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Peter Apps explains what the move means
Week three: Architects of misfortune
This week saw the lead architects for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment give evidence to the inquiry. Peter Apps runs through the key points
Week four: ‘I didn’t have any perception that it was the monster it’s become’
The architects continued to give evidence this week, outlining a lack of understanding of the fire risk posed by the cladding materials and its design. Nathaniel Barker reports
Week five: ‘No adverse effect in relation to external fire spread’
As the Grenfell Tower Inquiry returns from its long absence, Peter Apps recaps the key points from a week of important evidence from the fire consultants to the refurbishment
Week six: ‘I can’t recall any instance where I discussed the materials with building control’
Nathaniel Barker summarises what we learned from fire engineers Exova, architects Studio E and the early evidence from contractor Rydon
Week seven: ‘I do not think I have ever worked with a contractor operating with this level of nonchalance’
Two key witnesses from contractor Rydon gave evidence this week. Peter Apps recaps some of the key points from a revealing week of evidence
Week eight: ‘It haunts me that it wasn't challenged’
Four witnesses from contractor Rydon gave evidence this week. Lucie Heath recaps what we learned on the last week of evidence before the inquiry breaks for five weeks
Week nine: ‘All I can say is you will be taken out for a very nice meal very soon’
This week the inquiry heard evidence from witnesses at Harley Facades, the sub-contractor responsible for Grenfell Tower’s cladding. Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week 10: ‘As we all know, ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire!’
As the Grenfell Tower Inquiry entered its 10th week, Jack Simpson recaps the key points from a week of important evidence from the refurbishment’s cladding contractor
Week 11: ‘Did you get the impression Grenfell Tower was a guinea pig for this insulation?’
With witnesses from the cladding subcontractor, the firm which cut the deadly panels to shape and the clerk of works which inspected the job giving evidence this was week full of revelations. Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week 12: ‘Would you accept that was a serious failing on your part?’
With the surveyor who inspected Grenfell Tower for compliance giving evidence, this was a crucial week from the inquiry. Dominic Brady and Peter Apps report
Week 13: ‘Value for money is to be regarded as the key driver for this project’
With consultants to Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) giving evidence, attention at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry turned for this first time to the actions of the TMO and the council. Peter Apps reports
Week 14: ‘Did it not occur to you at this point that your budget was simply too low?’
This week, for the first time in phase two, the inquiry heard from Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, the landlord that oversaw the fatal refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Lucie Heath reports
Week 15: ‘Have you ever informed the police that you destroyed documents relevant to their investigation?’
Witnesses from the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) gave evidence for a second week, which began with a shocking revelation about withheld and destroyed evidence. Peter Apps recaps
Week 16: ‘I conclude this was very serious evidence of professional negligence’
This week saw members of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation finish giving evidence, before the inquiry’s expert witnesses took the stand to make some highly critical assessments of the work they had seen before and during the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Jack Simpson recaps
Grenfell Tower: a timeline of the refurbishment
Following the conclusion of module one of the Grenfell Inquiry’s second phase, Peter Apps presents a timeline of the key moments during the fatal refurbishment of the west London tower block
Week 17: ‘It’s hard to make a note about this because we are not clean’
The start of the second module of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase two came with some huge revelations about the companies that sold the products used in the cladding system. Peter Apps reports
Week 18: ‘It was just reckless optimism wasn't it?’
As the inquiry began cross-examining witnesses for the second module of its phase two work, the picture surrounding just how Grenfell Tower ended up wrapped in such dangerous materials became a little clearer. Nathaniel Barker was keeping an eye on proceedings
Week 19: ‘And that was intentional, deliberate, dishonest?’
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry this week heard the shocking story of how the insulation manufacturer “manipulated” official testing and marketed its product “dishonestly”. Peter Apps tells the story
Week 20: ‘We were outed by a consultant who we then had to fabricate a story to’
This week the inquiry investigated the actions of Kingspan – the manufacturer of one of the insulation products used in the tower’s cladding system. Dominic Brady reports
Week 21: ‘It’s there in black and white isn't it? We see a complete absence of any consideration of life safety’
The story of insulation giant Kingspan’s testing and marketing of its combustible insulation for high rises was unpacked in minute detail this week. Peter Apps reports
Week 22: ‘All we do is lie in here’
In the third week of evidence from insulation giant Kingspan, the inquiry continued to uncover shocking details about the firm’s behaviour both before and after the Grenfell Tower fire. Lucie Heath reports
Week 23: ‘That would have come as an earthquake to you at the time, would it not?’
This week the inquiry took its deepest dive yet into the inner workings of the cladding manufacturer whose product has been blamed for the terrible spread of fire up Grenfell Tower. Nathaniel Barker reports
Week 24: ‘Do you accept that Test 5B was Arconic's deadly secret’
The president of the firm that made and sold the cladding panels installed on Grenfell Tower was asked to account for the apparent concealment of “disastrous” fire tests on the product this week. Peter Apps reports
Week 25: ‘This is quite an incredible list of omissions and missed instances, isn’t it?’
This week the Grenfell Tower Inquiry heard its first witnesses from the Building Research Establishment (BRE) - the testing house which carried out key fire tests on the Kingspan and Celotex insulation products which were later used on Grenfell Tower. Peter Apps reports.
Week 26: 'You were taking an enormous risk, weren't you?'
Week 26 at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry was a key moment in understanding how dangerous products used on the tower came to be accepted by industry professionals. Dominic Brady reports
Week 27: ‘What will happen if one building made out [of] PE core is in fire and will kill 60 to 70 persons?’
The most explosive evidence this week at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry came from those who did not attend, as the evidence which would have been presented to Arconic witnesses was displayed in their absence. Peter Apps reports
Week 28: ‘This is a serious safety matter’
This week the Grenfell Tower Inquiry zeroed in on the British Board of Agrément, the body that produced “misleading” certificates which inspired trust in both the cladding and insulation used on the tower. Lucie Heath reports
Week 29: ‘Is it true that Kingspan’s position… was to do its best to ensure that science was secretly perverted for financial gain?’
The final week in this section of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry primarily examined the attempts by insulation manufacturer Kingspan to lobby government after the fire. Peter Apps reports
How the products used in Grenfell Tower's cladding system were tested and sold
As the section of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry examining how the products used in the cladding system were tested, marketed and sold comes to a close, Peter Apps summarises what we have learned about each of the products included in the system.
Week 30: ‘There is certainly a high probability that in the event of a fire the whole building can become an inferno’
The focus of the inquiry shifted this week to the actions of the social housing providers responsible for maintaining Grenfell Tower. Pete Apps recaps what we learned.
Week 31: ‘If we cannot get out people will die’
This week saw the former residents of Grenfell Tower enter the witness box to tell of their experiences attempting to raise complaints with the council and its managing agent. Pete Apps reports.