I have been off sick so able to watch all of his evidence. It has not been a great performance.

A piece of advice he ignored was that I got when I set off in the fire service was: "Sometimes its better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, rather than say someting and remove all doubt"

Everyone in the room and watching online knew that his use of non existant post nominals were to impress and to win work. He denied this and lied until the QC had him against the ropes.

I made notes and intend using them in training lectures for how NOT to act as a professional in the fire safety industry

But the part that many observers missed is how 'interesting' his appointment was with the TMO when he failed to meet the tender crtieria for the TMO contract he had applied for. Indeed, he left some bits of the tender document blank.

The tender was one of three separate TMO contracts - all 12 months in duration and all needed a review before extending. However, he won only one of the contracts (medium risk premises) and was then automatically given the high and low risk contracts. All were extended without review for up to 6 years (I think)

But most curiously, he was attending meetings with the TMO manager responsible for dishing out the work and supplying written reports to the TMO.... 2 months before he submitted his tender for the contract with them. Under cross examination, he was unable to remember how that came about. Hmmmmm

I am not suggesting corruption or anything of the sort, but his behaviour and the use of public money by the TMO when awarding the contract do not feel like professional integrity has been maintained at all times

For those not familiar with the Granfell website - you can also view the cross examination evidence in written form, and that generally takes less time than watching the video.

I agree the start of his evidence didn't create a great impression of competence. But he was pressed equally hard for the next 3 days on more technical matters and, I thought, showed he knew what he was contracted to do pretty well. You can also read he statement of The TMO H&S Manager (an IOSH corporate member) who's due to give evidence next week and I judge that too reads pretty well - but of course she's yet to be cross examined.

If you've not been following in great detail, the cross examinations of both the manufacturer and the fire test people exposed both serious flaws and downright falsehoods from the manufacturer.

Hi FS 101. Thanks you for your kind words. The were kinder than mine were at an electric scooter rider on a pavement who hit me as I walked out of a shop. I am nursing some broken ribs and injured foot, but am getting there - slowly :(

As you may be aware, there are now four types of FRA in residential buildings and a type 3 covers the Fire Safety Order and Housing Act. The scope of the FRA will require entry into a sample of flats.

https://fire-risk-assessment-network.com/blog/types-fire-risk-assessment-flats/

But even a type 1 (FSO only and non destructive assessment of common parts as you referred to) may need a sample of flats entered to:

• Check the condition of the fire doorset, in particular strips & seals plus any door closer, and;
• Determine - where necessary - any heat detector behind the front door which has been installed as part of the BS5839-1 system covering the common parts

Incidentally, any cladding that extends between two or more residential demises is also considered a ‘common part’ in that it is common - like a staircase or corridor- to several flats 

This is part of the reason why I don't do residential FRAs any more!! Far too much hassle and professional risk for my liking 

First 10 minutes of Wednesday's questioning and common sense gets mentioned as a valid emergency response strategy. 

IMHO the problem is the silence.  Just like mobility scooters but they also have the problem of the rider being lower than pedestrians.

Electric cars have the same issue.

The process does not sound correct with a Fire Risk assessor being responsible for checking the cladding. What are they going to do exactly? Sorry mate but that cladding that cost you millions has to all come off !. Surely this should be checked by building inspectors, part way through fitting to ensure it is being fitted correctly and before that the designer must take responsibility for the spec.

I fail to see it could be the responsibility so far down the line, when the dead has been done on something that big and costly.

I’m not in fire risk assessment, but that can’t be seen as the correct process can it.

Chris

backing up to Messey and just to say I also get spooked by the sudden appearance of the silent killers.  I included cyclists who work for delivery food outlets and they ride on the pavement.  E-Bikes go very fast and are silent as well.