Maintenance clause, confirmation bias

Confirmation bias is a cognitive error that people make when they are only willing to accept new information when it confirms what they already believe. People who fall into the trap of confirmation bias tend to purposefully seek out evidence that supports already solidified beliefs and purposefully reject any evidence that goes against those beliefs. - Peter Wason

When CIGA's inspector came to assess my damp complaint, it became pretty obvious that their agenda was to gather evidence for poor maintenance and gloss over anything that may suggest another cause.
As mentioned, the inspector did not check the loft space where I found all the spillage, did not measure the cavity widths, did not comment on the drilling pattern. Failed to investigate the condensation in the bedroom. Did not use thermal imaging to look for voids or slumps in the insulation, did not inspect the wall ties even though it was stated as a primary concern.

Their conclusion - poor maintenance is the cause

Please refer to number 3 in the conditions of the CIGA guarantee which states:“It is a condition of the Guarantee that the property must be maintained in a good state of repair.” 

Ok, lets look at clause 3 on my guarantee.

"3, If the problem still remains unresolved, contact CIGA in writing at the address given below".

The only paperwork we have for the install is the CIGA 25 year guarantee from 2009 which does not mention maintenance at all.
So I asked them for clarification the response was

Apologies for the misunderstanding, CIGA Guarantee wording is occasionally changed to reflect customer advice and guidance. However, despite the wording irregularity CIGA's stance remains unaltered.
 It is the responsibility of the home owner to ensure the property is adequately maintained and provided with a general level of weather resistance.

I asked them to explain how they can change the guarantee wording and apply it  retrospectively (it's not like back to the future where the guarantee in my hand magically changes) and have not got an answer.

The tireless CIVALLI has covered this issue  here

Just to be clear, a updated version of the CIGA guarantee is issued to new installations after 2014 which includes the maintenance clause - which you could argue is reasonable if it's explained adequately to the home owner. However, if you have lost or didn't have your certificate and it was originally issued before 2014, for a fee CIGA will supply you with a 'copy' of the original which is DIFFERENT to the original and will have this clause 3 inserted restrospetively.

Worse than that. Unpicking the bizarre langue from CIGA above. They (like the ministry of truth in George Orwell's 1984) insist that the new guarantee is how it's always been and that they are just clarifying what should have been implicitly obvious.

The beauty of this for CIGA is that at any snapshot in time you can find a crack in the render or some pointing that's a bit off or a gutter that's blocked and blame all the problems on that.
The problem is that it just leads to confirmation bias. Rather than doing a thorough impartial investigation, the inspector just looks for evidence to support 'violation' of the maintenance clause and stops there. Of course this saves time and money for them because you only have to look at the outside of the building to see a floppy gutter or a crack in the render and then tick the relevant box and move on.

I don't have the maintenance clause in my guarantee but in all correspondence they have stated that CIGA cannot accept responsibility because of poor maintenance.
When I pointed out the narrow cavity :

"Despite your references to a less than adequate cavity width this has no relevance to the lack of maintenance which has resulted in compromised insulation and internal décor damage."

Be prepared when dealing with CIGA. This is their standard response to EVERYTHING I have raised.
Legally I don't see how they can get away with this. Every other industry has to accept that the wording on the guarantees or contracts cannot be changed after the fact and lawyers are needed to seek clarification where two parties cannot agree on the interpretation of the words.

In the CIGA guide to handling complaints it states:

Identifying the exact point of water penetration may be extremely difficult and at times not possible, as it may be the entire outer leaf is allowing excessive rain water volumes to enter the cavity wall, due simply to porous mortar.

So what hope do we consumers have when face when decided that parts of their property need 'maintenance'. No maintenance programme is going to 100% protect your home 100% of the time.

It would be different if as part of the maintenance clause the installer discusses and agrees a written maintenance schedule with the customer BEFORE installing, this allows the customer to work out the cost of fulfilling the maintenance and can then make an informed decision about the net cost savings.
It's not quite that simple though as the installer would need to make it clear that a single event such as a bad storm or spontaneous flat roof failure cannot always be predicted and may lead to unexpected water ingress and soaking of the cavity material which can be very costly to fix.

If you are only saving say £150 on your energy bills annually then the £100s it would cost to pay a professional to do these annual 'maintenance' checks would quickly make the energy savings evaporate.

I do not believe that the majority of home owners have the time or inclination to look into the true risks and costs and make truly informed decision, and unfortunately consumers and especially vulnerable people such as older adults often take a tradesman's promises of 'cheaper efficient energy, green, and 'well all your neighbours have had it done and it's nice an cosy' at face value.
This is the reason people are starting to compare retrofit CWI and other energy saving schemes with the PPI scandal.

Unless it's clearly documented that a customer was able to weight up the risks and benefits, demonstrate understanding of the potential problems and cost and chose to go ahead, then I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has had CWI installed made a truly informed decision.