What was Nigel's positive information on the BRE Wales report?

-
In a talk to PCA April 2017. Nigel Donohue CEO of CIGA says industry “Presented positive information to the Welsh Government following BRE report into cavity and solid wall insulation”.

I have just re-read the Post Installation Performance of Cavity Wall Insulation- BRE Wales.
CIVALLI has a good summary on their web page.


The thing that struck me was that so many of the properties where completely unsuitable and this was easily demonstrated by competent surveyors as opposed to unqualified inspectors from the guarantee agencies.

The following sentence shows what consumers are up against with companies like CIGA:


Not a single claim was successful despite almost all the properties showing violations of BBA certificates and CIGA's own guidelines with  clear evidence of poor workmanship and/or materials which the guarantees explicitly cover.
When CIGA inspects properties, it is not in their interest at all to actually do a proper survey. If they went looking for violations such as narrow cavities or rubble then they would have to pay up for a full extraction based on the fact that the properties were unsuitable.

So what was this "Positive information" that Nigel presented? Was it that on reviewing the massive evidence of widespread poor installation and abysmal failure of the materials in these properties that Nigel reimbursed the cost of extraction and apologies at the inadequacy of CIGAs inspection and premature rejection of the claim. It seems unlikely.

It's totally unacceptable that CIGA with confirmation bias being its modus operandi can continue business as usual.  Why are other agencies not more directly critical about the guarantee agencies?

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