Weapons of moist destruction (WMD)

-
There is no regulator of CWI; Ofgem (the energy regulator) does not regulate the cavity wall installation industry. Ofgem has no oversight of the contractual arrangements between the energy companies and those organisations that install energy efficiency measures on their behalf.
There is no ombudsman or independent redress scheme. Local building control considers CWI a 3rd party issue. Energy Saving Trust despite being listed as partners on millions of certificate have distanced themselves from the guarantee. BBA don't think they have any responsibility for a product they have certified  'should last the life time of the building' when the manufacturer has gone bust.
The most prolific guarantee agency  CIGA can describe themselves as independent when they are in fact the industry and use unqualified 'inspectors' who are not formally accredited in damp and timber. 

Mis-sold, Misrepresented?

However, for many home owners all of the above is something that is discovered after the fact.  
The impression given when home owners who signed up for one of the subsidised Energy Efficiency Commitment, CERT, ECO schemes (yes so many names!) to install CWI at a low initial cost which could be recouped by skimming the projected savings from customer's energy bills.
The aims of Schemes such CERT is to make a contribution to the UK’s legally binding target under the Kyoto protocol (to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012) and the Climate Change Act 2008 requirement (to cut emissions of green house gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050) 

In the last 20 years or so there was such a hard push from government agencies to install CWI in order meet Carbon targets and of all the measures, it was seen as a cheap and effective measure which required 'relatively unskilled workers' to install it. 
Through policy and endorsement,  government essentially created the industry and not only provided free advertising for the products. Installers were able capitalise on the ambiguity to sell it door to door as 'government backed' or with a ''government backed guarantee'.

In the words of Nigel Donohue, CEO CIGA. CIGA was set up as an 'Independent not for profit company established in 1995 at the request of the Government".

What does 'at the request' mean. This implies that it's an integral part of a Government programme.

The first CIGA website contains multiple references to government assurances about lack of damp problems (though they don't explain what happens when it does get damp and may need costly extraction!).


I feel that the acrostic TTITS describes the management quite well.
Since the CIGA guarantee has been in place. All roads lead to CIGA. The advice of Ofgem, energy saving trust, successive energy ministers is that CIGA provides an independent guarantee and should be able to help.
The deal has been that that government and its agencies are happy to promote CWI as 'an effective guarantee backed measure' but CIGA gets to do what it wants in terms of redress with no government oversight or independent review of cases. CIGA's default of Alternative Dispute Resolution means that outcomes are bound by confidentiality and no patterns of failure can be fed back to the government agencies.
There is no government agency collecting data on failure of a particular system or even a record of extraction (as documented here).

As Tony Blair adeptly demonstrates. CIGA was the device which the government used to give the public confidence that their homes would be in good hands.

The fact that the government created a market which was ripe for unscrupulous or untrained installers to proliferate and did not adequately police them or the guarantee agency and is unwilling to get involved in  redress is an absolute scandal. 
CERT  specifically targeted vulnerable tenants who are most likely to be suffering from fuel poverty and less likely to attend to maintenance and stringent upkeep on their houses. For the government to allow CIGA to get away with slipping in a 'maintenance' clause after the industry started to realise that their crappy products were not as water resistent as first though is a scandal.

This is not just a mis-selling exercise of individual installers. It clearly is government sponsored mis -selling.

Epilogue 

What happened to the company which Tony Blair with his own hands helped install that lady's walls and presented the 25 year CIGA guarantee?

Heatopac is still trading  but has  following on its website. “I have wet cavity wall insulation and it is causing damp in my house. How much will it cost to remove the cavity wall insulation?”
"This is the question Heatopac get asked more than any other"



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