Energy Saving Trust Logo on CIGA guarantee certificates (clarification)

-
I finally got a response from Group Head of Marketing Communications at the Energy Saving Trust in regards to the CIGA. (see previous blog entry for background).

We are writing to you in connection with our response to your email of 07 January 2019 in which we wrote:

“We should point out that we are in no way connected to CIGA. We are not sure why our name would ever have appeared on a CIGA certificate, though it is possible they may have provided us a source of general information on insulation and other energy saving measures.”

Since the sending of this letter – we have carried out a further investigation into this matter.

It has now been established that the statement we made in our email of 12 February 2019 was not accurate. CIGA were granted permission to use the Energy Saving Trust In-Partnership brand mark in 2005 until it was withdrawn when the Energy Saving Trust rebranded in 2011.

We therefore apologise for the inaccuracy in our earlier email and trust the above clarifies the position for you.
EST (a government funded organisation) allowed CIGA to parade their guarantees as a partner giving an implied quality assurance and confidence for consumers. It did so knowing that these guarantees would be around for the next 25 years yet clearly tried to distance themselves from the blemish of CIGA past in their first response. Despite being funded by public money, EST lack the influence or impetus to take CIGA to task when guarantee holders complain about CIGA's conduct or technical assessment (even when CIGA contradicts EST guidance) and so there was no real value in that partnership from the consumer point of view.

Philip Sellwood has been the Chief Executive of the Energy Saving Trust since 2003 and so has steered the EST through the height of the CWI gold rush in which many CIGA board members and downright crooked installers got rich off despicable and heinous assaults on people homes.
What virtue exactly did the EST logo impart to the CIGA certificates? Bugger all it seems.  Why on earth would anyone trust EST endorsement of any product if they have no skin in the game when a technology they heavy promote turns out to be a disaster.

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