Update on CIGA and Energy Saving Trust

-


I have received a response from CIGA on the issue of Energy Saving Trust seeming to distance themselves from CIGA despite their name being on many guarantees with the words 'in partnership with'.

CIGA confirmed that Energy Saving Trust was a partner.
I have seen the correspondence regarding Energy Saving Trust and having seen internal correspondence with Energy Saving Trust at that time the use of their logo was under license following a joint partnership venture with them and as such with their permission. I can only assume their operative was not aware of this due to the obvious time lapse. We are corresponding with them to put the record straight as far as the issue you have raised is concerned.

I asked them if they would investigate the issue that the house was already covered in impermeable paint prior to CWI , especially given their partner EST were pretty clear that it was very likely that my home was not suitable for CWI.

Their response was this:
Yes we have followed up the EST logo issue even though it is a red herring in the scheme of things. CIGA takes on board their comments regarding the technical assessment process but again cannot be taken into isolation with considering other factors. 

 Right! Complete gibberish proceeded by some sort of micro gloat. I do not consider this a 'red herring' as either EST or CIGA are in the wrong and it's highly significant either way. I have just highlighted inconsistencies.
I just don't know how CIGA can get away with such flagrant disregard of industry standards and best practice and explain it away with a nonsense statement. This has been my experience with them for almost a year now.

I asked for clarification or some sort of explanation why CIGA could not take this into account and CIGA wrote to inform me that the have withdrawn their previous offer and told me they would no longer be communicating and that i'd have to take legal action or alternative dispute resolution.

Unfortunately that means I cannot blog any further specifics about my case for legal reasons.
I do however have many articles coming up which look in general at the problems with CWI, abuse of the ADR system, health implications and the legacy of CWI for this country.

I have not heard from Energy Saving Trust since my last post on this issue.

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