The statistics the public needs
Following on from the previous blog where I looked into the 4 in 1000 rate of 'claims' against a CIGA guarantee.
There are however are far more interesting statistics to report on that would be genuinely useful but not in the public domain.
CIGA do provide some limited information about extractions in the remediation report.
There are however are far more interesting statistics to report on that would be genuinely useful but not in the public domain.
CIGA do provide some limited information about extractions in the remediation report.
From CIGA's 2018 Annual Report:
"2017/18 Financial Year the approved costs for remedial work totalled £929,537.00 involving work at 964 homes which were completed at an average cost of £964.25 Cavity clearance was the main intervention, accounting for 63% of the works. "
That means that 607 cavities clearances were funded by CIGA in 2017-2018.
If CIGA closed 5,558 cases in the same time period then that’s 17% of closed ‘concerns' resulting in remediation and 11% of concerns resulting cavity clearance in that reporting period.
It begs the question of what happens to the 83% of claims that CIGA bats away as they did with my case initially - not all of them will be reliable claims but many will still need their cavity extracted as it's the only solution to damp issues caused by e.g saturated wool. But this will never be recorded by CIGA.
Also concerting is that 23% of the remediation was classified as 're-treatment'. This almost certainly means topping up of insulation which we are told is not approved by BBA for treatment of voids.
More detailed reporting
Why do CIGA not provide information such as the average age of the insulation before removal, the age and construction of the house, the type/brand of insulation that caused most failures. All these would help with consumer choice, provide data for modelling future failures and would highlight any particular insulation product that was clearly problematic.
CIGA has this information and if it's truly 'independent' as it trumpets then it should release this data. Unfortunately as it is a private company it is not subject to the freedom of information act. Any attempt I've had at getting information from CIGA has been ignored or met with 'it's not reasonable for a consumer to know this information'.
Oversight by a public body?
Something as important as retrofit insulation that CIGA alone has guaranteed 6 million properties would have to tick the 'scale' threshold as having some sort of public body oversight and reporting of data you would think?
Unfortunately there is no way to even count the number of CWI extractions there is no central record.
Even if CIGA coughed up some statistics, they are not going to be able to tell us who of the 83% that were unsuccessful with CIGA or never even bothered to contact CIGA and went ahead to extracted their cavities with one of the growing number of cavity extraction firms.
I asked the local authority building control if we needed to notify of removal and the response was that they don't know as no one there deals with cavity wall insulation as it's a 3rd party issue! They were confused about how you would actually remove the insulation safely and stated that they only need to be notified if 25% of the bricks were removed.
This represents a horrendous lack of oversight by building control. I was genuinely shocked.
If I was the minister in charge of The Department of Business and Energy and Industrial strategy( BEIS ) then I would absolutely insist on having this information.
The other retrospective way of recording cavity insulation status is the English House survey. However, there is no record of the type of insulation, no record of extraction and worse still the methodology for field work suggest that if there's 'evidence of cavity wall insulation' then it will be ticked as being present. A house that has had cavity insulation extraction may on the outside show the tell tale scars left by Cavity man and that might lead to such houses to be incorrectly recorded as having insulation. [I'm checking with the office of national statistics if this is the case]
Also concerting is that 23% of the remediation was classified as 're-treatment'. This almost certainly means topping up of insulation which we are told is not approved by BBA for treatment of voids.
A Top up is not approved by the BBA and neither is single elevation extraction according to recent emails I have from BBA technical. This means CIGA is offering a non approved recommendation.— Cavity Extraction (@CExtraction) December 2, 2018
More detailed reporting
Why do CIGA not provide information such as the average age of the insulation before removal, the age and construction of the house, the type/brand of insulation that caused most failures. All these would help with consumer choice, provide data for modelling future failures and would highlight any particular insulation product that was clearly problematic.
CIGA has this information and if it's truly 'independent' as it trumpets then it should release this data. Unfortunately as it is a private company it is not subject to the freedom of information act. Any attempt I've had at getting information from CIGA has been ignored or met with 'it's not reasonable for a consumer to know this information'.
Oversight by a public body?
Something as important as retrofit insulation that CIGA alone has guaranteed 6 million properties would have to tick the 'scale' threshold as having some sort of public body oversight and reporting of data you would think?
Unfortunately there is no way to even count the number of CWI extractions there is no central record.
Even if CIGA coughed up some statistics, they are not going to be able to tell us who of the 83% that were unsuccessful with CIGA or never even bothered to contact CIGA and went ahead to extracted their cavities with one of the growing number of cavity extraction firms.
I asked the local authority building control if we needed to notify of removal and the response was that they don't know as no one there deals with cavity wall insulation as it's a 3rd party issue! They were confused about how you would actually remove the insulation safely and stated that they only need to be notified if 25% of the bricks were removed.
This represents a horrendous lack of oversight by building control. I was genuinely shocked.
If I was the minister in charge of The Department of Business and Energy and Industrial strategy( BEIS ) then I would absolutely insist on having this information.
The other retrospective way of recording cavity insulation status is the English House survey. However, there is no record of the type of insulation, no record of extraction and worse still the methodology for field work suggest that if there's 'evidence of cavity wall insulation' then it will be ticked as being present. A house that has had cavity insulation extraction may on the outside show the tell tale scars left by Cavity man and that might lead to such houses to be incorrectly recorded as having insulation. [I'm checking with the office of national statistics if this is the case]
The fact that no government agencies seem to care about these statistics is disheartening.
You cannot monitor the effectiveness and failures of these highly invasive retrofit solutions without data. BEIS also cannot do reliable carbon reduction calculation if they do not include the number of CWI extracted homes and those with significant voids.
This is not just about numbers, it's absolutely a public concern issue. We know that if CIGA produced a detailed breakdown that it's highly likely that e.g blown mineral wool would be at the root of most extractions.
The mode of failure of blown mineral wool is particularly devastating. Regardless of whether damp problems are blamed on 'maintenance' or not. Most home owners would never have had it installed had it been explained that when wet wool slumps and causes terrible damp then the only solution to extracting it is by chipping any render and removing bricks from the outer wall and other invasive methods.
The fact that CIGA board members are intrinsically linked (usually by shared directorship) with manufacturers and installers of particular products I'm sure plays a big part in the limited statistics that CIGA supply. If a particular insulation product was demonised or taken off the market then it would impact certain board members financially.
This has to change.
You cannot monitor the effectiveness and failures of these highly invasive retrofit solutions without data. BEIS also cannot do reliable carbon reduction calculation if they do not include the number of CWI extracted homes and those with significant voids.
This is not just about numbers, it's absolutely a public concern issue. We know that if CIGA produced a detailed breakdown that it's highly likely that e.g blown mineral wool would be at the root of most extractions.
The mode of failure of blown mineral wool is particularly devastating. Regardless of whether damp problems are blamed on 'maintenance' or not. Most home owners would never have had it installed had it been explained that when wet wool slumps and causes terrible damp then the only solution to extracting it is by chipping any render and removing bricks from the outer wall and other invasive methods.
The fact that CIGA board members are intrinsically linked (usually by shared directorship) with manufacturers and installers of particular products I'm sure plays a big part in the limited statistics that CIGA supply. If a particular insulation product was demonised or taken off the market then it would impact certain board members financially.
This has to change.
Thank you so much for all your hard work. It is much appreciated.
ReplyDelete