‘I was quickly outside my comfort zone’
the first hour of the fire, which was reported shortly before 1am.
Despite the “stay put” advice being redundant by 1.24am, it remained in place until 2.47am.
Richard Millett QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked him: “Did you ever receive any training in how to re-evaluate advice offered during fire survival calls throughout the incident?”
The watch manager at North Kensington fire station in west London, replied: “Not that I can recall, no.”
Asked whether he had been trained to inform fire control to change the advice, he said: “Not any training. I can’t recall that I received any training as to how that was done.”
Mr Millett asked Mr Dowden: “As of June 2017, do you think you would be able to identify a cladding fire if you saw one?”
He replied: “No, I wouldn’t be able to identify a cladding fire because I didn’t know at that point that [combustible material] was being used as a cladding material.”
Mr Dowden also said he had himself inspected the building during a widely-criticised refurbishment in February 2016, but did not inspect the cladding.
He admitted that his investigation failed to follow a checklist set out in national policy guidance. At times he paused up to 25 seconds as he searched for an answer questions put to him.
Asked by Mr Millett whether he had carried out cladding inspection, he replied: “That was something I didn’t look at, I wasn’t aware of.
“And, knowing what I know now, that is certainly something I would have looked at, without a doubt.”
At one point, Sir Martin asked: “Did anyone give you any help or advice in understanding when it might be necessary to have a full evacuation, things to look out for, or was it just down to your personal experience?”
Mr Dowden said: “I don’t think I’ve had any input from any individual.
“The only way I could relate to to the that is to reference back to our internal high-rise policy, particularly around when compartmentation fails. But I don’t think I’ve been in a training environment when that’s been referenced.”
Mr Millett asked if it would be fair to say training was “a lot about what the policy contained but you weren’t trained in how to implement it”.
The witness replied: “I would say that is a fair comment.”
The inquiry was also told about his training record.
Mr Dowden was listed as a “lecturer”, but said the contents of his lessons were never checked by supervisors or superiors, only auditors who visited occasionally. Mr Millett asked him: “How could you know that the lectures you were giving to your firefighters about highrise fire fighting were effective?”
He replied: “I suppose the only way that I could ever really do that is to see how they apply themselves on the fireground.”
The inquiry lawyer said: “Leaving it to the fireground of an actual incident? Might that not be a bit late?”
“I suppose, yes,” replied the fire officer.
During a short break in the afternoon Mr Dowden said he felt unable to continue.
Mr Millett told Sir Martin MooreBick: “Mr Chairman… I don’t think Mr Dowden is feeling able to continue today. I think, in fairness to him, we will get more out of him and he will be able to serve us better if we were able to stop now and resume tomorrow morning.”
Sir Martin said he had been “becoming increasingly concerned” that Mr Dowden was finding it a “difficult exercise” and said arrangements for his evidence should be considered before the night of the fire is discussed.
The officer is one of seven members of the London Fire Brigade due to give evidence before the inquiry this week.
The inquiry is set to continue hearing evidence from Mr Dowden today.