BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, podcasts.

Hello and welcome to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry podcast with me, Kate Lamble.

This week, the evidence focused on the certification body, the British Board of Agramont, or BBA.

And we heard that staff at the BBA accepted the organisation published a materially wrong certificate

for the cladding panels installed on Grenfell Tower. AndBA accepted the organisation published a materially wrong certificate for the cladding panels

installed on Grenfell Tower, and they accepted they made a, quote, very basic failure of due diligence

while issuing a certificate for Kingspan insulation. Let's get on to the evidence then.

The British Board of Agamont or BBA was an independent non-profit organisation,

which, for a fee, would look at the testing data around a product and produce the certificate

to show which standards it met. Did the BBA rely on its income from clients entering into

contracts to obtain certificates? Yes. And also from payment of annual maintenance fees in

respect to those certificates. Yes. A BBA certificate could improve consumer confidence

in a product. Designers and contractors could be reassured the standards of manufacturer claimed

were right.

Counsel to the inquiry, Kate Grange, read from one of the BBA's written witness statements.

It is my understanding that a certificate holder will use a certificate as an independent means of demonstrating their products' fitness for its intended purpose to potential customers.

Certificates didn't just cover fire safety.

They included everything from durability and maintenance

to technical specifications like strength and thermal performance.

The BBA produced two certificates for products used at Grenfell Tower,

one for the Rainer Bond 55 cladding panels made by Arconic,

and one for Kingspan's insulation, Coolthirm K-15. Evidence this week has shown there were

...