The IAA - CIGA2

-
On April the 1st 2020 a press release, which could easily be dismissed as a joke, announced that Nigel Donogue, CEO of CIGA was launching a new end to end Installation organisation with the strap line 'Right first time'.

What made some people think it was a prank was that the only content of subance on the launch web site was a list of CIGA's 'remedition contractors' (see appendix) - companies paid to fix problems with retrofit. Very 'Right first time'!

However it turns out to be a real thing and very concerning as this is clearly a restructuring of CIGA to capitalise on an expected retofit boost following adoption of the PAS standards and Trustmark 'quality mark' all of which were a fallout from the Each Home Count review.
 It also appears to be an attempt to shake of the toxic brand of CIGA which again was brought up in parliament on May 2020 

In case there was any doubt of IAA being a rebrand.  Companies House as of 4 Jun 2020 shows that IAA is CIGA people.

PAS in many ways is a headache to the traditional cavity wall instuation model whereby the industry grabs millions of pounds via carbon credits covered with a hollow guarantee from CIGA. It didn't matter if the house was not suitable, the cavities full of rubble or in some cases the wall had no cavity. If there were drillholes done: cash could be claimed without independent scruitny.

PAS2035 requires a retrofit co-ordinator to be involved an sign off on an intervention in the context of a whole house assesment and so there should no longer be people cold calling to install CWI alone but a holistic review in order to find the most appropriate solution for energy saving.
This sounds promising as it would be a opportunity for the goverment to mandate that the retrofit co-ordinator role is an independent role, similar to that of a building control employee.
However, there doesn't seem to be a requirement for independence and IAA (aka CIGA2) are purpoting to offer an end to end solution include design and specification.
This is a disaster for consumers as CIGA has a massive conflict of interest due to directors ownership of companies that profit from all installations good or bad.
Unless something is done to assert this independence, retrofit co-ordinator will quickly become a tick box that 'my mate dave can do the sign off for £70 quid' which has plagued self certification schemes.

At worst it could be that company X wants to install CWI, convinces home owner then gets CIGA2 to sign off the paper work for retrofit co-orinator approval.  If this turns out to not be the optimal solution then i'm sure CIGA2 will refuse to engage in any technical discusion and offer ADR(which is confidential and not open to scrutiny).
The only possible safeguard would be Trustmark but given their endorsement of CIGA and parroting of CIGA's narrative that problems in the industry are down to a few rogue traders (failing to mention Mark group,  Carillion, British Gas, Miller Pattison), I have little faith in any sort of meaningful oversight of this problematic industry.

As CIGA has such a poor track record of managing quality and redress in one part of the sector (CWI) , why on earth would BEIS, Trustmark and EHC allow them to expand into whole house retofit.  CIGA2 can boost the value of its director's companies by giving them end to end acreditation for any intervention covered by PAS (solid, loft, floor insulation).
Far from being a rap on the knuckles, the institutions which are meant to protect the public are rewarding and promoting them.

Appendix

IAA's 'Right first time' list of remediation contractors is just a carbon copy of CIGAs 

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