THE FAKED EXPERT REPORT

The expert report commissioned by the PHSO (Ombudsman) is the sole thread by which HSE credibility and integrity hangs. The report was prepared by Mr David Arnold, an eminent past president of CIBSE and Director of the Consultancy Troup, Bywaters and Anders. Mr Arnold’s September 2014 Report_[11] as linked here includes some of my handwritten comments. His status may be one reason CIBSE will not condemn his report despite their earlier technical report agreeing with me. CIBSE may also have been instrumental in appointing Mr Arnold, who at about 70 years old was neither lacking experience nor risking his career by agreeing to falsify his findings.

There is bizarre irony in Mr Arnold being the appointed expert by virtue of his lofty status in CIBSE, His spurious proposition relies on contradicting universally accepted CIBSE Guidance at the most basic level.

In writing their “brief” for the report the PHSO refused to put the specific questions I requested and instead asked only open questions. In contrast from the documents referenced, the HSE were allowed to have input into the form the investigation took…This was not a very level playing field and had a referee wearing the opposing team’s colours. None of this is exceptional for the PHSO who annually receive 2000 complaints about their reports which mainly concern serious NHS issues. Of all those committed enough to attempt PHSO’s convoluted and opaque system, only about 5% ever receive a positive outcome. (Those interested can refer to the website PHSO the Facts representing the views of an organisation whose members have many bitter experiences.)

The Arnold report is relatively lengthy and to the lay person skimming through it conveys an image of complexity and authority. The contents were beyond the comprehension of the PHSO and its conclusion in support of HSE was all they required. They issued the Final Report after the Version 1 Draft whilst unseen by myself was the subject of extended comment and involvement by HSE. I was given a chance to see and comment only on the resulting Version 2, but predictably none of the questions I asked about obvious inconsistencies were answered (or even put) before its publication. This was the only part of the process which was done quickly.

Although appearing impressive the Expert Report can be very simply divided into “Blatant untruths” and the “Spurious technical smokescreen”. The “untruths” denying the existence of an original system being clear and obvious to any lay person caring to read it, but apparently not to the PHSO “Investigator”. The Expert clearly felt he had no option but to resort to deliberate lies in denying the circa 2005 removal and replacement process as his starting point. The “spurious technical smokescreen” attempting to justify the resulting situation is guaranteed to bring a puzzled expression to anyone with any knowledge of ventilation.

I regret to have to say the parts of the Expert Report referred to below cannot possibly be untrue due to mere oversight or incompetence by this highly experienced specialist. The combination of what is said and left unsaid clearly constitute an elaborate, calculated and deliberate deception. I suggest the degree of obvious dishonesty is such that nobody should trust the conclusion.

The “expert” decided to fabricate a justification for the existing situation on the entirely false basis that an original legally necessary mechanical fresh air supply (provably removed circa 2005) had never existed.

1. The photograph clearly showing the typical control louvre remaining in an original 120mm mechanical supply “duct” as ignored and unexplained by Mr Arnold. An inconvenient truth. There is no photograph or detailed examination of what the expert claims have always been open holes. He does not reference the photograph, explain it, or even claim it is some kind of fake despite it being in the original submission to HSE in 2008.

2. The email from the MD of Frasc_[1] the company who admitted installing the deficient system circa 2005 is not acknowledged in the Report despite being brought o PHSO’s attention on many occasions. Clearly any competent report would simply follow up with Frasc and confirm the fact the former mechanical fresh air supply was not replaced. Serial numbers on replacement plant provide simple corroborative evidence. It really was that simple to verify the truth. The replacement was more likely to be due to ignorance or incompetence on the building owner’s part than deliberate design, but that does not excuse serious illegality. Simply air brushing it from the record by fabricating a “cover story” does not constitute “expert” investigation in my opinion – or do you disagree?.

3. The very suggestion that this or multi-storey offices generally in the 70s was ventilated by odd open holes under windows (2.5 on page 7) is surely obvious nonsense. Has anyone seen such a building? Have you not heard of those clever opening windows Mr Arnold? Air is blown in one side and out the other he says. Well on a windy day in January that may not be welcome to occupants and it certainly is not a legally acceptable form of ventilation. Apparently on still days the air drifts upwards by “natural buoyancy” like “magic” through the concrete floors? From the dozens of similar aged buildings I have seen many are ventilated by opening windows, which is legal but have obvious practical problems hence the move to enclosed, mechanically ventilated (air conditioned) buildings like Emerson House used to be. I have only seen open holes in the context of heavy industrial processes and they are illustrated as such in HSE Guidance. The Building Regulations and Workplace Regulations specifically rule out uncontrolled openings or any at low level anyway.

4. In the need to “air brush out” the disastrous refurbishment of circa 2005 the “expert” resorts (page 9) to the claim of an un-named building manager as his sole evidence for the work (as admitted by Frasc who did it!) not having taken place. He claims no significant work was done since before the year 2000. If the “expert” had troubled to do any actual expert investigation in return for his fee (paid from public funds) he would have been confronted by evidence which did not match his pre-ordained conclusion. Serial and model numbers on the re-circulation fan coil units fitted circa 2005 are irrefutable evidence they were made and installed around that time. Photographs he had from 2008 clearly show the still shiny new replacement units, runs of new pipework, line of old pipework removed and new enclosing boxing.

Anyone troubling to look through the HSE / “expert” report will note the careful absence of any photograph which shows the actuality of the post refurbishment system. His photographs are of the type taken to advertise empty office space and avoid any awkward evidence of the truth. He includes the manufacturer’s name of the entirely irrelevant extract fan but says not a word about the only plant within office spaces being the 200 or so re-circulating fan coil units. He did not seek information or records from the owners or service company presumably because the facts cut across the conclusion pre-ordained by the HSE.

THE SPURIOUS TECHNICAL SMOKESCREEN

The inconvenient removal of old system having been denied by telling lies, the expert is left with the problem of justifying what remains being any form of compliant system. Note there is no dispute by anybody as to what physically exists in terms of an old extract grille and some holes in the wall. I just dispute the lie that it represents anything remotely legal. Ventilation and air flows are matters of physics (like gravity) which obey certain rules applicable even to the HSE. CIBSE design guidance and data give a basis for which a huge variety of systems can be designed, installed and tested. Like car braking systems. No one system is mandatory, but you cannot have “no system” or claim something which the all established rules and scientific testing data directly state to be physically impossible. There is nothing new or novel here. There are literally hundreds of thousands of examples to prove what I say to be correct. Knowing this to be true, Mr Arnold misuses technical expressions to create an elaborate smokescreen for the PHSO of apparent “expert analysis”, which is actually complete nonsense.

1. To any honest expert the fact the report contains any attempt at justification, calculation or testing at all will be surprising. The complete absence of any system of legal or viable fresh air supply is an automatic total failure and there is literally nothing to test in that sense. In the words of the Salford Council former Chief Safety Officer [2] it is obvious the system is “inadequate” and fails to meet Workplace Regulation requirements. The only point going any further is to assess the immediate risk to occupants and decide what happens in the short term, pending a legal system being installed. The spurious nature of any claimed testing is detailed specifically below, its purpose seems purely to deliberately deceive those lacking even basic subject knowledge. If the failure were not so complete and was merely deficiency in performance or similar I would not be wasting my time trying to bring it to attention. Testing of a valid system however poor or incomplete would centre on the plant, controls and ducts actually providing fresh air of which there is none at Emerson House. Nor incredibly, is any claimed to be there.

2. The basis of a system of ventilation claimed by HSE and attempted to be justified in their defence is clearly stated to be physically impossible in any relevant technical standard and most certainly specifically in the CIBSE documents under UK Regulations. It is alleged the old original return air grilles “extract” air so strongly that it is drawn through holes in the walls of the large open plan office spaces. That is despite the “suction” strength (quite properly) being barely enough to support a piece of paper against them…CIBSE Guidance – Guide B - the only standard named under UK Regulations is absolutely clear this is physically impossible and to quote them the effect or influence of extract/return/exhaust terminals in office ventilation “is very close to the opening” only and “the position of the opening has little influence on airflow pattern in the space”. And that is assuming a proper supply system is present anyway. The claim by HSE and Mr Arnold is simply physically impossible. All claims of fresh air volumes supplied in terms of litres per second per person where based on the measurements at the extract grilles are entirely spurious on many counts. Just saying “litres per second” is unfortunately enough to fool the PHSO. Most obviously they are simply not measures of fresh air entering the space but of air leaving the space at that point. Given the proximity to the draughty doors from the building staircase CIBSE test data is equally clear this is a source of unwanted air which would actually prevent a proper system working anyway. As such, measurements are actually of the degree of failure if anything….but provided the blizzard of spurious figures impresses or mystifies lay people, who cares? The truth is that extract based systems apply only where smells, dust or fumes are specifically being extracted which in office blocks is just the toilets and possibly kitchens.

3. Going on from the above and building on HSE's already dishonest proposition, Mr Arnold has the audacity to add an absurd flourish of his own. (page 14) He goes so far as to say” balancing dampers” (louvres to lay persons) in the exhaust duct can be adjusted to extract more or less air from offices….despite the total irrelevance of extracted air to fresh air, legality or comfort. One assumes he is just amusing himself with how blatant he could be and still get away with it…Mr Arnold and HSE make great play of the fact the instrument used to take the irrelevant readings was properly “calibrated”. We are back to the MOT inspector claiming a successful fully “calibrated rolling road” test on the car with no brakes. I suggest it is Mr Arnold and the HSE who require complete “re-calibration”.

4. Not content with the false “extract” story which even they saw could not be applied in all areas, the HSE tried to justify the position in the totally enclosed office areas by a dilution test. (That is - Putting a gas in the space and measuring the rate it dissipates at to see if the ventilation system works. A valid confirmatory test ONLY if you know what you are testing and what is leading to the changes observed.) Given the expert’s diagram shows no source of legally valid fresh air entering the totally enclosed area (on page 12) they knew any dissipation was emphatically NOT due to fresh air entering. Therefore as with all other testing the purpose was merely to fabricate a spurious “technical smokescreen”. Although it did not stop him supporting HSE’s final conclusions, even Mr Arnold pointed out the flaws in this ridiculous process. Taking it as read from 3. above the claimed volume of fresh air is entirely fictional anyway, but to illustrate the specific point…Mr Arnold states the claimed figures should have included all the 16 plus people present in meeting rooms and offices and said this so called “mechanical system” had the assistance of a “windy day”. Hopefully this story will be one of many to raise a laugh at future seminars on how not to test a ventilation system, especially one which does not exist.

5. Incredibly Mr Arnold admits (pages 11 and 15/16) that all individual offices and meeting rooms are in effect not ventilated. (Note by the same logic so is the space subject to the spurious gas test in 4 above but he is too polite to say so). Being not linked to the “magic” old return grilles. He notes one fairly small meeting room was (not unusually) occupied by 14 people on the day of his visit. Based merely on his own “expert whim” (he is so eminent he needs no evidence or references to standards which apparently apply only to mere mortals) he concludes this is not a problem as rooms are only used in a “transient” manner. Presumably he means if the 14 people were on a typical “transient” half day seminar they could take very deep breath before they started….Using HSE's minimum of 5 l/s per person the 14 people would need over 500 CUBIC METRES of air in a typical 2 hour meeting. On what possible basis can Mr Arnold conclude "ZERO" fresh air is acceptable? Just how bad would it need to have been before he refused to follow the HSE's pre-ordained conclusion? The reality is these rooms became almost unbearable in minutes with doors closed as he effectively admits. This is nonsense of course and ANY technical design standard (enforceable under Regulations) actually requires HIGHER ventilation rates due to denser populations in meeting rooms…Not that any part of this multi-storey building is legally ventilated anyway.

The above “spurious technical smokescreen” if believed would mean that the billions spent installing proper ventilation worldwide to offices, shopping centres and the like is totally unnecessary. None of those shiny ducts, grilles blowing out air, AHUs or boxes making humming noises are needed. The Ventilation and Services Industries are taking everybody for a ride and a few holes in walls are all that is ever needed. Certainly in context of Emerson House Mr Arnold does not even hint that any form of mechanical ventilation (possibly AC to lay persons) is required. Whilst having no option but admit various problems none of these affect his conclusion supporting the HSE.

His report is the grossest possible betrayal of the profession and industry of which he claims to have played a valuable part. The offence covered up is criminal under the Laws of Health and Safety and could have led to a prosecution. He and his company are therefore actively complicit in Perverting the Course of Justice. Following the report his company refused to answer emails or questions. I can only assume they subscribe to the views in his report as they have not objected to it being published on a website. One wonders how many other Consultancies share these same high standards of competence and integrity? On receipt of my emails and tweets they can answer or be judged by their silence.