KCTMO health and safety lead sought new fire risk assessor more willing to ‘challenge fire brigade’

“I wonder whether this evidence you’re giving is just a bit of a gloss now on historical words that you used, which I’ve shown you,” replied Richard Millett, lead counsel to the inquiry. “If you really did want to take an approach which was co-operative with the LFB to see if there was a more cost-effective and practical way of going about satisfying their requirements you might have said so, but instead you want to go into a tender because Salvus are reluctant to challenge the LFB on thorny issues.”

Ms Wray said the fire brigade was refusing to meet with the TMO at “high level”.

Inside Housing previously reported that Ms Wray told the TMO’s board in July 2010, months after her email was sent, that the TMO had hired a new consultancy to carry out fire risk assessments that “was willing to challenge the fire brigade on our behalf if he considered their requirements to be excessive”.

Ms Wray was also asked about the tender process the TMO undertook ahead of hiring Mr Stokes in 2010.

Last week the inquiry heard that Mr Stokes misled KCTMO over his qualifications by adding a number of post-nominals to his name that did not exist.

Mr Millett asked Ms Wray is she was surprised that some of the qualifications Mr Stokes claimed to have did not exist.

“I’d be surprised. I know he sort of portrayed them as if they were post-nominals and I knew that they weren’t post-nominals. I always treated them as if they were [continuing professional development] that you couldn’t necessarily use in that way,” she said.

Earlier, the inquiry heard how a report of KCTMO’s management systems from Salvus in September 2009 had identified 19 areas in which it was failing to meet its statutory duties.

These included not having an overall fire policy statement at the organisation, with Salvus also issuing a “strong recommendation” for KCTMO to plan for the safety of disabled and vulnerable residents during a fire – something it failed to do.

The report was written on 22 September 2009 and Ms Wray held a meeting with Salvus two days later.

However, in a report she wrote for KCTMO’s board in October 2009 she made no mention of the 19 breaches, claiming that the consultancy believed “the TMO have good fire safety policies and procedures in place” but they had not been “consistently documented”.

She claimed that she had not seen the report until November, despite the meeting with Salvus coming immediately after it was written.

“Are you saying that at the 24 September meeting, Salvus didn’t let on to you that they had identified 19 statutory breaches?” Mr Millett asked.

Ms Wray insisted she did not know of the report and said it would have been “really remiss” of her not to mention it if she had.

However, she was then shown further minutes from a meeting in December, where she referenced the report but made no reference to the failings it underscored – saying only that it “sets out the safety framework within which we and our contractors should be working”.

“Can you account for why on the face of it, this paragraph says absolutely nothing about any of the statutory breaches or any of the defects in fire safety management identified in the Salvus report?” asked Mr Millett.

“No, I can’t give you an explanation,” said Ms Wray, who noted that her line manager would have read any reports she submitted to the board.

Earlier, she said she felt she was “stretched really thin” in her job at KCTMO, which involved responsibility for all of the 650 blocks in the council’s stock.

“In an ideal world, and in a different sector there would have been more resources, undoubtedly, but we prioritised and we made sure that we did what we needed to do,” she said.

Ms Wray is still employed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which managed KCTMO.

The inquiry continues with further evidence from Ms Wray tomorrow.

Additional reporting by Peter Apps