CIGA quarterly reports

-
The last quarterly reports were rushed out after CIGA 'forgot' to publish them for 3 quarters despite being key Each Home Counts commitment (page 40 in the report). This was very shortly after I pointed this out.

Of course it's good to have reporting but the number are not terribly useful for consumers. It would be so much more useful to know for each concern the date it was installed to give us an idea of lag time vs recent installs, how many extractions were done and  products associated with worst failure rate etc.

A few comments:

Q1 2019 has a Basic maths error again. ((1626-1114)/1626)*100 is not 16% . This would have been signed off by CEO. That fact that the they have under calculated indicated incompetence rather than conspiracy.

From Q4 2018
"Historically water penetration influenced by weather conditions has resulted in claims being received. We continue to see a reduction in the level of claims received in this area due to improved weather conditions and more properties being subject to routine maintenance repairs to keep the home water tight."



This is complete conjecture. CIGA does not monitor guarantee holder's maintenance schedules! Any decrease has to be interpreted on back of dwindling number of installs.
Installs reached a peak in 2009. 

 Again "It is no surprise to see a a reduction in the level of claims received due to CIGA's drive to improve quality at pre installation stage and at the stage of applying for a guarantee."

This would be substantiated if the number of e.g post 1 year install complaints were reported as you would expect complaints against recent installs to drop off dramatically if quality improvements alone were the driver.  Bear in mind that I was speaking to an installer who told us that they would walk away from half the houses they would have been happy to install in 2009 because they know they wouldn't pass the BBA photo test.  It's not a testament to improvement in quality but a testament to just how many unsuitable houses were injected in the past.



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