CONCERNS had been raised in 2013 that the construction industry was “starting to get very confused through clever marketing” by a major insulation maker, which has a factory in Herefordshire, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry has heard.

Tony Baker, a staff member involved in fire testing at the Building Research Establishment (BRE), was queried about the suitability of Kingspan’s (KS) Kooltherm K15 insulation for a cladding project in Leeds in July 2013, proceedings heard.

He sent an email round to colleagues, including BRE business group manager Stephen Howard, which read: “I believe the test data available from KS would be very limited and the market is starting to get very confused through clever marketing by KS.”

Mr Howard told the inquiry on Monday he did not remember the email and said he did not recall asking Mr Baker what he meant by “clever marketing”.

Inquiry lawyer Richard Millett QC asked: “Were you not interested to know why the market was starting to get very confused through clever marketing by Kingspan?”

He said: “I think there was ongoing discussions at the time, but it depends on what that marketing was saying.

“I can’t really remember the ongoing discussions with Tony or others over Kingspan marketing material.”

Mr Millett said: “It’s clearly been raised as a concern internally by Tony Baker within the BRE, did you take any steps to investigate what it was that the market was getting confused about as a result of Kingspan’s clever marketing?”

Mr Howard said: “I don’t recall doing so, no.

“Ultimately I’m not sure that… we are supplying into a professional market, I would question how confused architects and building control are over that material.

“As I said, it was only later that concerns over what was being accepted… that I started to have concerns over what was being accepted and on what basis.”

The inquiry has already heard that K15 – a popular phenolic foam insulation used in a small quantity on Grenfell Tower – was being sold with an unrepresentative fire test certificate.

It has heard evidence that Kingspan, an insulation industry leader with a factory near Leominster, changed the composition of the product after 2005 without amending marketing material.

The outdated material stated that the insulation was suitable for use on buildings taller than 18 metres and had passed a relevant fire test.

But the new version of the insulation failed several cladding fire tests, the first in December 2007.

A Kingspan technician noted it was “very different in a fire situation to the previous technology” and had “burnt very ferociously”.

However the inquiry has heard the firm kept selling it using the old technology’s test pass from 2005 in the belief it would eventually pass the fire test.

Mr Millett suggested that Kingspan’s marketing material was “thoroughly misleading” to customers considering it for use on high-rise blocks.

Mr Howard said a statement Kingspan made about its suitability for high-rises “needs to be qualified and I accept that”, but added: “I wouldn’t call it thoroughly misleading.

“It’s not as clear and concise as I believe it should be.”

Kingspan has already acknowledged “process shortcomings during the period of 2005 to 2014 for which it sincerely apologises”.

However, it said building regulations at the time permitted K15’s use on tall buildings providing the overall cladding system was compliant.

The firm has said it did not provide any advice about the suitability of K15 for use on Grenfell Tower and that the firm only learned a small amount of the insulation had been used on the building after the June 2017 fire, which killed 72 people.

The inquiry will finish hearing Mr Howard’s evidence on Tuesday.