I previously posted about CIGA deleting their business from google in order to remove bad reviews. Which occurred coincidentally around the time they were applying for Trustmark accreditation. CIGA now takes a leaf from George Orwell's  Ministry of truth pretending they never existed. They have recently renamed their CWISC google business to now be the main CIGA business. The CWISC( self certification scheme) resides at the same physical address and so easy enough to change. The result is a relatively squeaky clean rating. This is suspicious of rogue trader behaviour. This is what the google page looked like last year - 16 terrible review evaporated.

The most popular post on this blog  details the problems of blocking the cavity with insulation in the presence of impermeable paint/render. Here To recap the events since. Energy Saving Trust had provided me with technical guidance regarding the likely problems :   "It is certainly the case that adding a coat of paint or other material with lower vapour permeability to a wall with relatively high permeability will affect the way moisture can travel through the wall. It is also the case that adding insulation to a wall at any point will also affect the way moisture behaves and travels within the wall. If the wall has been externally painted with a low permeability material, then these guidelines may not be sufficient to minimise risk of unintended consequences, and so we advise that the pre insulation survey takes full account of the situation, and the likely behaviour of moisture in the wall post insulation." EST also stated that it's CIGA's responsibility to

Cavity Wall insulation is associated with increased indoor humidity which is a risk factor for condensation and mould. Home owners suffering from black mould are told by installers and CIGA inspectors that humidity and condensation is the cause of their damp, yet home owners are also told that 'disturbing the insulation' which includes installing through wall vents apparently invalidates the 25 CIGA guarantee.  The industry need to stop blaming home owners and guarantees should be fit for purpose.  Occupiers instinctively know that living in a dwelling with visible mould has health implications. With the recent publication of the PAS2035 standards for retrofit  ventilation has been promoted to a 1st class citizen which must be addressed in any retrofit. Ventilation is incredibly important for the management of humidity, controlling mould growth and expelling various particulates from the room. The sort of particulates that are thought to be detrimental include anythin

I'm slowly getting there in this long saga documenting the poor standard of CWI installed into our 1930s property. But over a year later and I'm still finding very basic examples of poor workmanship. This one is somewhat subtle but demonstrates why pumping in installation with minimal understanding of the building fabric is utterly reckless.  It has become apparent that the external DPC protrudes into the cavity and it does so in all the walls of the old part of house as illustrated in the diagram below. The DPC has a mortar bed on top of it which makes it very rigid and acts as a pinch point capable of snagging large pieces of bricks and mortar as they drop into the cavity, holding them against the internal wall above the DPC level. The impact of CWI on a protruding DPC The presence of such debris causes a thermal bridge (condensation spot risk) to the internal wall quite a few bricks up from the internal DPC and so any moisture that enters the cavity has

This blog post is entirely based on publicly available information. In an apparent 'road to Damascus conversion' Neil Marshall Chief Executive at National Insulation Association (NIA) set up a twitter account @cavityInsulat1 in late July 2019 and proceeded to express concern about mass failures in CWI. He claimed to be involving 'key stakeholders' and calling for a national survey of the the problem similar in scope to the NIHE report which I've previously summarised  here . Marshall initally presented himself as "CIEA" I understand that he made contact and with installers, CIVALLI, BRE and government departments with the stated goal of creating an alliance to set standards for extraction of insulation. [cavity extraction is unregulated]. I don't think anyone ever took his efforts seriously as the 'association' changed names at least 3 times that I'm aware of - broadening in scope each time with the last moniker being "In

CIGA used to have a statement on their website which said that those identified as vulnerable would be able to go thorough ADR without charge.  It appears to have disappeared. Someone in dire need contacted me and I suggested that they would certainly be classed as vulnerable and should contact CIGA to explain. Only I could not find any references to this scheme on the current website. This is not nit picking. There are vulnerable people who are suffering terribly with the consequences of poorly installed, on inappropriate insulation. If they don't know about this scheme then they won't know to ask. The vulnerability policy was also a key point in the Each Home Counts 'case study' of CIGA. Looking at an earlier snapshot  - it't is very clear. Here is link to the arbitration information  https://ciga.co.uk/independent-arbitration-dispute-process/ I have taken a snapshot of the   current version of the website on Friday 30 Aug 2019. There is no mentio

I'm not a buildings expert but since becoming a home owner, but I have enjoyed learning about the construction and history of my house and houses in general. In an older post I talked about  lintels and cavity trays . During my ongoing renovation I've been able to obtain deeper access to the structure. The UPCV windows had plastic trim/architrave internally which when removed allowed a scope to be passed into the cavity. I was expecting boot lintels but in both places I checked (the front door and toilet window) there are separate concrete lintels for the internal out external skin separated by an air gap. In fact the gap is continuous with the cavity and so should have been filled with insulation. The lintel above the front door has a taper which would direct water away form the inner wall however due to the current position of the front door that would be inside the house. I believe doors were previously placed further towards the inside of the wall. The followi

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

My property has a suspended timber floor and was extended at the entier rear part of the old house  with a solid concrete floor. We have been told by RICS surveyor that the airflow was already inadequate with only 3 aibricks for the whole of the subfloor and it seems as if this should have been flagged up during the pre install survey. In fact we got a CIGA authorised remediation contractor to review the property for extraction and re-install and he said that it wasn’t suitable for reinstall but regardless we needed 4 new air bricks to meet the current regulations. According to  Technical Note 18 "Extensions built to extend across the entire rear elevation of a property also compromises this essential cross flow ventilation, raising humidity below the timber floor and increasing the potential risk of timber destroying mould growth to develop. CIGA has seen a marked increase in recent years of timber floor board and joist deterioration caused by reduced cross flow ventilation

In this post I explain how to apply to the Chartered Suveryor's Voluntary service (CSVS) via the Citizen's Advice Bureau. RICS describes the CSVS: " This service provides free property advice to people who would otherwise be unable to obtain professional assistance from a Chartered Surveyor. This page doesn't constitute best advice but offers one perspective on the 'redress process' which you might to consider but please do your own research and make up your own mind. Why you probably need a survey? The CIGA 25 year guarantee covers defects in workmanship or materials. It seems that if CIGA is challenged on the validity of the install or some clear industry standard violation then the claimant is likely to be prematurely referred to ADR. I say premature because the  process was always supposed to a last resort not an excuse to avoid investigating in full. However, the premature referral to ADR is a bit of a trap . Homeowners desperate to fix damp and

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.

In my previous posting Unable To locate DPC  I discussed the integrity of the DPC(damp proof course) and how making blind assumptions can lead to violations of the Agrément certificate and thus and thus building regulations.  This post deals with bridges and what installers and CIGA inspectors should check. A damp-proof course is a barrier, usually formed by a waterproof membrane such as bitumen or a non porous stone such as slate. Without a DPC, water can travel up through mortar beds and porous bricks from the ground through capillary action. The effect varies depending on the type of brick and mortar, soil type and drainage,  rate of evaporation from the walls and anything that might hinder evaporation (impermeable paints or cementinous renders). During the building of a dwelling a lot of care is taken to ensure that no structures accidentally create a connection between the ground and the wall above the DPC (known as a bridge. It's usually some well meaning and/or in

The BBA Cerficate for our CWI Agrément Certificate No 01/3789 states that the bottom row of drill holes should be maximum 800mm above the damp proof course (DPC). Agrément Certificate No 01/3789 The DPC is quite tricky to spot because the bottom row of bricks are undrendered but painted black. The home buyer surveyor was not able to identify the DPC and two CIGA inspectors did not look or document it despite concluding that the installation was done to system designer's specification. It's not possible to assertain if the installation was correctly done to industry standards without locating the DPC. CIGA have stated that drill hole patterns were the key factor in their conclusion of conformity but  have told me it would be unreasonable for me to have that information (I was present for both inspections and no measurements of drill holes were done). For my property one might ask which DPC?  The 1960s extension has a brick external leaf which has been tied in

The last quarterly reports were rushed out after CIGA 'forgot' to publish them for 3 quarters despite being key Each Home Counts commitment ( page 40 in the report ). This was very shortly after I pointed this out. Of course it's good to have reporting but the number are not terribly useful for consumers. It would be so much more useful to know for each concern the date it was installed to give us an idea of lag time vs recent installs, how many extractions were done and  products associated with worst failure rate etc. A few comments: Q1 2019 has a Basic maths error again. ((1626-1114)/1626)*100 is not 16% . This would have been signed off by CEO. That fact that the they have under calculated indicated incompetence rather than conspiracy. From Q4 2018 "Historically water penetration influenced by weather conditions has resulted in claims being received. We continue to see a reduction in the level of claims received in this area due to improved weather co

My house, as well as others in the street, immediately stick out as being unusual.  They were built in the art deco style in 1930 but have been modified replacing original windows with uPVC and some have had their original flat roof replaced with a pitched roof.  There are some clear remnants of the original ere however. One of the defining features of art deco houses is the use of cantilever overhangs over windows, flat roof sections and for crisp clean (often curved) balconies. There are two such cantilever overhangs on my house.  The canopy over the front door (see photo below) and a wrap around flat roof over the bay window at the front of the house.  Cantilever canopy over the front door( possibly over specified  as can easily take 2 people jumping  on it it!) As part of my ongoing investigation into the construction of the house I decided to look how the overhangs were constructed. The roof at the front is only a thin strip of roof just in front of the 1st floor