Why PAS2035 and retrofit is doomed

-

Trustmark without ceremony have now put up CIGA2 The IAA (insulation assurance authority) as a Trustmark scheme provider as a retrofit co-ordinator scheme operator.

The IAA  rebrand can use all their 'experience' and an appalling and amoral redress system which has been dragged in front of  parliament several times to mess with far more aspects of your house than ever before thanks to Trustmark.

One of the big criticisms of the cavity insulation industry was that installers could grab the money from an ECO scheme,  fold their business and then spring up as another company and get re-certified within weeks without the hassle of complaints with CIGA doing a good job of batting off valid claims. With the help of BEIS and Trustmark, CIGA have done a macro version of this trick and managed to phoenix a scheme provider while keeping all the technical oversight 'in house'.

Trustmark have essentially enabled the biggest Phoenix of all. Remember that without any precedence or a proven record of anything but messing up CWI and EWI. Trustmark granted  CIGA and SWIGA  a PAS2035 bypass. 


And best of all they can offer it as a loss leader bankrolled by CIGA debenture (which should be helping victims) thus out-pricing independent retrofit co-ordinators who are far more likely to be working in the home owner's best interest rather than CIGA's.

How is this any different to what came before? Trustmark has proven itself to be a puppy dog that rolls over for the industry where what was desperately needed was a body to challenge and fight for the consumer.  Oversight as ever is poor as it relies on the same chain of trust from UKAS to installer which caused so much damage to people's houses in the past and Trustmark has very little to offer the vulnerable with the guarantees being the same (unregulated and not insurance backed),  it's the exact same CIGA redress process as ADR is provided by the scheme and is confidential and legally binding and not visible to Trustmark.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The controversy over Cavity Wall Insulation 'topups'

-
Image
In this article I talk about the practice and problems of topping up insulation when voids are discovered, why it is being done and the potential violations of building regulations. I can only put forwards what I have understood from public documents and personal correspondence  So I welcome corrections or clarifications from the industry on this important issue for home owners and will happily update this post to reflect any inaccurate statements. We know that 100s of topups are done every year.   From what I can gather : If the BBA have not approved these topups then the relevant local authority building control should have been notified prior to topping up as an 'off licence' use of the product.  It is not clear that the correct procedures are being followed in all cases. Background :Voids are common A void is simply an area cavity between the walls which is missing insulation.  If a void is large enough then the insulation will not be compliant with the meter square
Read more

Lintels, weep holes and render

-
Image
I found the notion of lintels in cavity trays difficult to visualise. The reason I'm looking into lintels is that there is a damp patch that runs along the lintel over the front door. Brick houses built today will have cavity trays and weep holes inserted into the design. You will spot weep holes these as either gaps in the mortar or where the mortar is replaced with a perforated plastic insert as below. CIGA state that no water should enter the cavity is properly maintained building. If that is so then why does building control mandate a cavity tray. Typical modern cavity tray with weep holes sitting on a steel lintel. The purpose of a cavity tray is to ensure moisture that gets in the cavity when driven through the mortar joints or other means is directed back to the outside wall and out of the building. If you didn't have a cavity tray or some sort of damp proof course then moisture would collect on the flat lintel and then flow off the sides of the lintel or soa
Read more

Discrepancies between Internal and external DPC (damp proof course)

-
Image
In a cavity wall construction, one would expect that the damp proof membrane to be at the same level on both walls. It turns out this is not always the case and my house is a good example where the internal wall's DPC is more than a brick lower than the external wall DPC. I didn't even think to check this before reading the CIGA Technical note 14 . This clearly states that if the distance between DPC and ground level is within a brick (as was the case with my property at time of install) then 'numerous other factors' must be assessed before declaring the dwelling as being suitable for CWI. CIGA  Technical note 14 . One of the factors is the relative level of the inner and outer leaf DPC. This is exactly what I found in my property. Ive used a floorboard to show the position of the internal floor. The DPC is clearly a brick below the floorboard and less than brick above the block paving. External leaf DPC is 1 brick below the floor level.
Read more