Review of the BBA CIT / Northern Ireland Social Housing Investigation

In 2017 BBA CIT (a subsidiary of BBA) was tasked by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) with conducting the largest survey to date of properties installed with Cavity Wall insulation(CWI).

The NIHE is sponsored by Department for Communities a devolved Northern Ireland government department in the Northern Ireland Executive.

This incredibly important report was published 3rd May 2019 and provides a pretty hefty blow to the CWI industry and associated 'independent' guarantee companies. 

The NIHE has a considerable investment in CWI following an extensive programme of insulating cavity walls across its housing stock in the 1980s.

This survey comes on the back of a previous survey of 206 homes from NIHE Stock done in 2014 which concluded. "The research found that many homes suffered poor and inadequate levels of thermal protection. Only 9% (19 homes) were deemed to have sufficient cavity wall insulation and be fit for purpose"

This new report states "In 2017, CIT was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to undertake an investigation into the condition of cavity wall insulation and the impact this was having on thermal efficiency and technical defects across a representative sample of their social housing stock and a selection of private home properties".

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and its current minister for energy Claire Perry should very concerned about these findings as the industry which has not only betrayed the trust of home owners in but have also jeopardised the  governments's carbon targets due to non compliant insulation fitting and subsequent poor performance not to mention the growing number of and extractions which are not currently counted as part of the carbon shortfall.

What was surveyed? 

The survey consisted of a 'quality check' on  938 properties consisting of 825 dwellings from NIHE social housing stock and 113 private homes.

The properties were randomly chosen to be a fair representation of the 80,000 homes in the NIHE housing stock. 

The results generated by this  is a far more accurate assessment of inadequate CWI installs compared to CIGA's reported metrics of 'concerns per guarantees issues'.

The quality check were essentially a standard list of checks to the property that could be performed by trained personnel which included inspecting gutters, ground levels. masonry and render condition but also looked at cavity width, drill pattern of CWI, presence of voids, dirty wall ties and rubble in the cavity etc.

Summary of results

The main outcomes are divided into two. Social and private housing.

• 63% of the Social housing dwellings surveyed were non-compliant with industry standards and the BBA certificate.
• 36% of the Private dwellings surveyed were non-compliant with industry standards and the BBA certificate.
• 84% of social housing were not adequately maintained and were showing differing levels of stress to the building fabric.

These figures are horrendous. And questions should be asked given that this technology was rolled out so extensively (and often targeted at the fuel poor) yet has such a poor compliance with industry standards

With such a poor rate of maintenance in the social housing, it suggest that 'lack of maintenance ' is clearly the norm for these properties and the maintenance to the level required to safeguard CWI  may not be achievable. Rolling out a maintenance sensitive solution to such a population would be immoral and knowing the mode of failure of a product such as mineral wool, deeply irresponsible.

Who should pay up?

Out of the 80,000 NIHE housing stock. 71,929 were built after 1945 and are likely to be cavity construction. At a rate of 63% rate of failure to meet industry standards that would put the number at 46,753.

Just to put some sort of cash value on that if each sub standard property required £3000 to extract, clear the cavities and put in new compliant insulation,  the bill would be around £140 million. This does not include the private dwellings.

BBA CIT have not held back here. They have basically said that ultimately the guarantee provider must be held accountable and at the very least refund the cost of insulation and any associated damage.

Some of these properties may be too old to have a guarantee such as CIGA's but on the face of it if the NIHE pursued this advice it would essentially bankrupt any installers still trading and potentially wipe out the funds of e.g CIGA.

How does this apply to the rest of the UK?

The answer is we cannot be sure. NIHE is to be commended for funding this research and recognising the importance of independent information and not relying in the industry's 'assurance'. 

However, there are factors that make it difficult to generalise to the UK. Northern Ireland has different pattern of weather and inland/costal housing distribution to the rest of the UK. There may have been specific CWI firms who were able to secure more social housing contracts which may it difficult to apply to another region.

What we do know is that the main reasons for lack of compliance was nothing to do with NI weather patterns but  basic basic things such as obstructions in the cavity or inadequate drill pattern and we know that a proper 'industry standard' detailed check of the cavity simply could not have been done during the 2 hours the install took to put in.

CIGA have always used BBA publicly as reason to trust the guarantee yet we have ample evidence that CIGA have completely dismissed home owners who raise concerns about BBA certificate violations similar to the ones listed in the report.

As with the advice for NIHE. BBA CIT are very clear to private home owners. If the insulation is not up to the standard of the BBA certificate then CIGA have a clear responsibility for redress - no wriggling out with the standard  'lack of maintenance' response.

Just to be clear. Your home does not have to be damp, and you many not have submitted a concern to CIGA to have non compliant insulation. CIGA's figures are not representative.

Criticism/ Limitations

There are a couple of problems with the methodology which was shared with me by a contact which may actually make the figures an underestimate of the non compliance with industry standards.

• If only 3 holes were drilled and if they were not thermographically targeted then the was less likely to find a problem such as voids or cavity obstructions. 
• As the assessors were not qualified surveyors, there is no comment about the time scale of the problems with the building's fabric and if the issues were likely to have been preexisting to the CWI. Pre existing defects being contraindication to CWI in the first place.