Cavity Wall Insulation

Debate between John Denham and Adrian Sanders

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I am pleased to open this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sanders. I welcome the Minister to her place—I will be posing a number of questions to her at the end of my remarks.

I am able to bring this subject here for debate because of a remarkable woman, Claire Eades, and two others, Pauline Saunders and Dianna Goodwin. That trio of schoolteacher, artist and retired magistrate have shown that those whose cavity wall insulation goes wrong can find it near impossible to obtain swift and effective redress. Quite recently, they set up the Cavity Wall Insulation Victims Alliance, and I have drawn on far more cases from the association than I can report today. Other reported cases are included in the briefing pack for the debate compiled by the Library. I know that hon. Members of all parties will contribute their own constituency cases.

Claire Eades’s parents are constituents of mine. Their home in Southampton suffered badly from wrongly installed cavity wall insulation. Claire ultimately achieved a reasonable settlement after a determined campaign, but her parents are not the only ones affected. Their case exposes the problems with the supposedly independent insurance body, the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, as well as bad industry practice and total inadequacies in the regulation provided by Government.

The market in cavity wall insulation is worth £700 million to £800 million a year. It has been boosted by Government policy, with some direct Government funding; however, most CWI has been funded by energy companies, which have been required to invest in energy conservation measures through a range of schemes, such as the carbon emissions reduction target, the community energy saving programme and the energy companies obligation. All the schemes differ in some respects but include insulation paid for by energy companies meeting Government obligations. Energy companies that fail to do so can face fines.

Many householders who responded to cold calls, e-mails and adverts and had cavity wall insulation installed had no idea that an energy company was funding that installation. Advertising typically refers to a 25-year guarantee and names CIGA. Doorstep visits and telephone calls typically describe the schemes, wrongly, as Government-backed or Government-funded. I have transcripts of a couple of phone conversations with such salesmen, one of whom, when asked who funded the cavity wall insulation, said:

“Erm, I think it’s the government, and also your British Gas, your Southern Electric, and the other companies. Sorry, it’s only my first week but obviously that’s why they’ve already paid for it and…it’s free on behalf of the government.”

In another case, this time when discussing guarantees, the salesman said:

“Yeah, there’s only a couple of companies which government approves, they’ll give you a 25 year guarantee with the government.”

The transcript goes on:

“‘Sorry, if I had it done would I get a government guarantee?’

‘For 25 years.’

‘What, the government guarantees it?’

‘Yeah, because the government fund it. They don’t fund it, it’s from the tax they’ve taken from you, so they fund it in that way.’”

That is fairly typical of what goes on in the industry.

Even official bodies get it wrong. The North East Lincolnshire council website advises:

“The Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency…was set up by the government to provide householders with an independent, uniform and dependable guarantee. This is a 25-year guarantee that is independent of the installer who insulates your property.”

But CIGA was not set up by the Government, nor is it independent of the installers. When things go wrong, the Government are the first to deny any responsibility or involvement. Government policy is driving much of the market, but the Government are not taking the measures needed to ensure high standards of installation or redress.

The Government have had plenty of warnings. The Office of Fair Trading reported in 2012 that failure to install properly would undermine Department of Energy and Climate Change targets for energy reduction. It recommended that DECC should ensure that there was a single body ensuring effective independent monitoring of installers and installation quality. All there seems to be is a licence; Dianna Goodwin of the CWIVA bought one online for £75.

The Minister is advised by the Green Deal Consumer Protection Forum. At its meeting on 26 June 2014, Ofgem reported:

“Ofgem has noted that there are suspected cases of fraud within the ECO scheme, for example around the installations for hard-to-treat cavity walls. Ofgem was informed of anecdotal evidence of systematic abuse of the technical rules, and investigated. It found that a number of installations were done improperly…Ofgem reported that one of the main difficulties it has is that it cannot engage with the supply chain”—

that is, the installers—

“as its agreement is with energy suppliers.”

At the same meeting the Energy Saving Advice Service reported that it receives about 30 complaints about ECO per week. There have been different schemes, but those elements—poor installation, abuse of the rules, and the inability of Ofgem to act—appear to run through all of them.

Following a cold call, a Mark Group survey of the Eades property took place on 10 June 2010. CWI can go wrong—badly installed or installed in an inappropriate property, it can cause damp penetration and condensation. In 2011 Which? asked eight companies to assess a clearly unsuitable house for CWI. All eight surveys recommended installing CWI. Funnily enough, four were carried out by that same company, the Mark Group, and three by the same person. All four surveys provided different prices even though they recommended the same work and materials.

The Eades’ property is less than 1 mile from the sea and according to an independent survey conducted last year is

“exposed to severe wind driven rain”.

Cavity wall insulation was installed in the property on 10 November 2010. By 4 February 2011, the house had a strong musty smell and significant condensation, and black mould was beginning to form. It is common for problems with CWI to appear more than a year after installation, yet the only routine independent inspection of properties takes place a few weeks after installation. It is required by Ofgem, but it is not to check whether there are damp problems; it looks only at whether energy reduction targets are being met. I cannot know—nor can the Minister—whether the problems I am raising are isolated or the tip of an iceberg.

On 3 February 2012, the Eades sent a letter by recorded delivery to the Mark Group reporting severe condensation. No response was received to the complaint. That lack of response appears to be standard across the industry. In December 2013, two years after the original installation, there was significant water ingress and damp patches were appearing along the length of the south-west-facing wall upstairs and downstairs and from top to bottom of the wall.

A quick look at the part of the Review Centre website relating to the Mark Group shows pages of complaints. For example:

“The installation team from Mark group in their wisdom filled all the air bricks in the property with silicone sealant…causing huge problems with damp. I have complained but had no response.”

Another reads,

“from my experience either I am the most unlucky house-holder in the country, if this is a one-off event, or the whole cavity idea is a big sham which should be investigated by someone other than the industry itself.”

A further complaint reads:

“Do not use Mark group. They filled our walls with non-compliant CWI, as open to the wind driven rain, our properties have been ruined...CIGA’s guarantee up to now is worthless”.

A further complaint says:

“It is now nearly 6 months since they damaged my home and I am no nearer to resolving the issue. They seem to be using delaying tactics in the hope that I will give up.”

And so it goes on, for page after page.

I do not know, however, whether the Mark Group is worse than any other company. It is still approved to do this work. My own encounter with the company was not good, as it made a fatuous attempt to threaten legal action after I retweeted a customer complaint—something I have never come across in 22 years as a Member of Parliament. [Interruption.]

[Mr Adrian Sanders (in the Chair)]

Order. As much as people in the public gallery might feel the need to applaud, that is not the way we do things. Thank you.

[Mr Denham]

I have some satisfaction in saying that it was at that moment that I decided that I should try to secure a parliamentary debate on the issue.

The Eades eventually contacted the Mark Group via its website. On 9 January 2014, Mr Lillywhite of the Mark Group inspected the property and offered to extract the cavity wall insulation for £2,000. Such double paydays for companies that install insulation wrongly and then charge to take it out again seem to be endemic in the industry. On 21 January, Claire Eades put a review on the Review Centre website, as the report of the inspection in January had still not been received. After further chasing, the Mark Group report was sent by Nathan Dunham. The report stated that the CWI was correctly installed and that the property was at fault. The response that nothing is wrong with the cavity wall insulation and that the damp is caused by something else is standard across the industry. Sometimes the property is blamed, and sometimes the occupants’ lifestyle is blamed, even though the same people have been living in these properties for years without suffering damp problems. It is simply a disreputable tactic. Many of those who take up CWI are older. They live in properties they own, and fuel bills are a major part of their expenditure. Perhaps the industry thinks they are less likely to complain.

On 31 January 2014, Claire Eades gave Mr Dunham of Mark Group a week to supply a date for a CIGA visit. CIGA was established in 1995. Ministers refer to it as independent; indeed, a letter from the Minister in December said:

“CIGA is an independent body”

and

“an organisation that will clearly be up to resolving issues relating to cavity wall insulation”.

I must ask the Minister what advice she was acting on when she signed that letter.

How independent is CIGA? On 3 November 2014, the directors were: Jeremy Robson, a director of the British Board of Agrément, the National Insulation Association and InstaGroup; John Sinfield, managing director of Knauf, which makes insulation materials; John Card, a director of Domestic and General Insulation Ltd; Brendan McCrea, a director of Abbey Insulation and Warmfill; Walter French, a director of the National Insulation Association; and Ian Tebb, a director of Polypearl Ltd and Tebway Ltd. Michael Cottingham was a director of CIGA between 2008 and 2009 and the managing director of Mark Group from 1991 to 2009. How can an organisation led almost entirely by directors of insulation companies be called independent?

I will return to the case of Pauline Saunders, but I want to read an e-mail she sent about a south Wales neighbour:

“I have just called on a very vulnerable 82 year old widow who unfortunately is in the position that her cavity wall installer has gone out of business and CIGA are not responding to any correspondence regarding this lady’s situation. I have just visited this lady and found her up to her knees in shredded wall paper”—

it was peeling off because of the damp—

“that she is scraping off the wall herself in an effort to save money”.

Even if vulnerable people complain, therefore, they are not guaranteed a reply.

After chasing, a CIGA inspection was carried out on the Eades’s property by a Chris Cuss on 13 February. On 20 February, the Eades wrote to CIGA to complain of a lack of interest on the part of the inspector. On 25 February, a short summary was sent to the Eades stating that the property was at fault, with no mention of faulty installation. The family therefore asked Mark Group for a copy of the original inspection report, which, had it been done properly, would have shown any failures in the property.

On 26 February, Mr and Mrs Eades wrote to John Campbell at CIGA. In a separate case, Dianna Goodwin of Milford on Sea had been copied into an internal e-mail from Mr Campbell, which referred to her, saying:

“She has far too much time on her hands and nothing better to do.”

In that case too, CIGA claimed there was no evidence that the CWI had

“caused or contributed to any issues with water penetration”.

That e-mail was sent from an organisation that, in its briefing to Members of Parliament for today’s debate, says:

“If something does go wrong, CIGA is at hand to put things right for consumers. It exists to protect consumers; they are our number one priority”.

The full CIGA report was never sent to Mr and Mrs Eades, but Claire Eades asked Mark Group for its report and the full CIGA report. The full CIGA report was then sent, and it said:

“the installation of CWI has NOT been completed in compliance with system designer and BBA specifications, the drilling pattern is non-compliant omitting an area of the original external wall within the rear extension”.

The full report would never have been made available to Mr and Mrs Eades had it not been for their daughter’s persistence.

CIGA colludes with installers to suppress evidence of failure and mis-installation. In the Eades case, it concluded, on the basis of no evidence, that CWI had exacerbated a concern regarding damp. It failed to acknowledge that the original Mark Group survey did not identify any pre-existing dampness.

CIGA claims there are historical problems in homes that have always been dry. Mrs Goodwin of Portsmouth was told her damp was caused by property defects and “lifestyle condensation”, even though her home had never previously suffered from damp. Chris Stillwell of Weymouth says:

“I have been left with damp and damaged walls....my flat is uninhabitable and has been ruined…CIGA who guarantee CWI keep trying to fob us off, even though their report states that the insulation used is now non-compliant”.

On 17 March last year, Lloyds, the household insurer for the Eades property, said the damp and water ingress were due to faulty CWI. However, the Eades still faced the challenge of getting work done, because having the CWI installed had invalidated their household insurance policy. They raised their plight with DECC, which said, “Go to Ofgem.” It also said:

“under the 25 year guarantee there should be no cost to the householder”.

DECC must be aware that CIGA conspires to keep details of inspection reports from householders and produces reports that are totally inadequate.

The Eades took their plight to Ofgem. Ofgem took a month to reply and referred them to Citizens Advice. They raised their plight with trading standards, which said, “Go to the citizens advice bureau.” They went to the CAB, which said it could not help and suggested the couple go to trading standards. They finally went back to DECC, asking who was responsible. The DECC reply was very clear: whoever it was, it certainly was not going to be DECC. DECC said:

“The contractual arrangements between energy supplier and third parties are not within our remit”.

For the Eades, this was the first time the involvement of an energy supplier had been mentioned.

A couple of weeks letter, DECC offered further advice: Mr and Mrs Eades—an elderly couple—should get a solicitor. However, on 23 May, there was a breakthrough. Ofgem had managed to establish that E.ON had funded the installation. Claire Eades told me that Dani Hickman of E.ON corresponded directly and appropriately with Mr and Mrs Eades. The involvement of the energy supplier was critical.

The Cavity Wall Insulation Victims Alliance has been in contact with more than 40 victims, but the Eades case is the only one in which the link with the energy company has been established. Ofgem does not hold address-level information consistently and, under CERT and CESP, there was no obligation for suppliers and installers to submit it. Despite that, the Minister of State wrote to me on 9 July, saying:

“Should it be the case that this work was undertaken under CERT, then Ms Eades or her parents may wish to contact the relevant energy supplier if they are unable to resolve the matter with the installer”.

In this case, Ofgem did trace the energy supplier for the Eades, but whoever drafted that letter for the Minister of State must have been aware that it would have been quite impossible in most cases under CERT to trace the energy supplier.

E.ON’s involvement led to an inspection by Knauf. The inspection recommended that the insulation be taken out of the south-west-facing wall due to voids. The internal walls in the extension should also have been drilled out for installation, and there were other failings. The Knauf report was never sent to Mr and Mrs Eades, and it was not intended for them. It was passed to them only by E.ON, which, acting on their behalf, demanded it from the Mark Group.

On 20 June, E.ON commissioned Green Deal Resourcing to carry out thermal imaging, which showed voids. The property is exposed to severe wind-driven rain. The insulation is facilitating the transfer of moisture across the cavity.

Having got that further independent report, the Eades complained to the British Board of Agrément. The BBA is supposed to accredit installers and materials, but it shares directors with CIGA. This is a very cosy network. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service, which is responsible for accrediting the BBA, confirms that householders have no right to see BBA reports on their properties.

On 21 July, the BBA inspected the property. Its report was never sent to Mr and Mrs Eades; it was sent to the Mark Group. It started, “Hi Nathan.” It continued:

“The system hasn’t been installed in compliance with the BBA issued certificate and should be extracted”.

Again, the Eades had no right to see that report. They got it only because E.ON was involved and passed it on to them.

To return to the case of Pauline Saunders of Newport, she finally received £1,750, and the Mark Group removed the fill. The trigger was a BBA report on the property that was sent to her in error. As a result, she was able to establish that it said:

“the property was and is unsuitable for cavity wall insulation and should not have been insulated”.

Without that report, which was intended only for the eyes of the installers or CIGA, she would not have received a payout.

In the end, the Mark Group and its loss adjuster, while still denying responsibility, paid the Eades about £11,000. Let us remember that the Mark Group originally wanted to charge £2,000 to remove the insulation from the property, having already been paid by E.ON for putting it in. How many people will there be who have not managed to pursue things that far? One cause of offence is the fact that even when settlements are achieved, installers still routinely deny responsibility and describe any action as a good will payment. Mr and Mrs Eades had their work done by a company that only does removal. On the occasions when CIGA will pay for extraction, its chosen extraction companies are Dyson Energy Services and InstaGroup, both of which share directors with it, so even when CIGA is finally forced to act, it seems that companies owned by its directors are the ones paid to do the work.

In a note sent to Members of Parliament, CIGA says:

“If something does go wrong, CIGA is at hand to put things right for consumers”.

I can give no credence to that claim. It says:

“If there is a problem with the workmanship or materials of an installation, we will ensure the installer put things right.”

As I have shown, CIGA takes active steps to avoid installers having to put things right. It says that, with regard to the 11,675 concerns reported, it has worked with installers to resolve 80% of cases; in 20% of them it covered the cost of work to the value of more than £2 million. Well, 80% plus 20% is 100%: that is all the cases dealt with. So how come so many people say they cannot get their problems resolved? There is something dodgy.

The obvious question is whether all those householders would agree that the resolution has been satisfactory, or whether they have just given up, accepted whatever they can take, or paid to put things right themselves. Who knows? There is no independent oversight of CIGA. CIGA is judge and jury in its own case, and it is run by the people who cause the problem. It says in its briefing to MPs that it will appoint a consumer champion. It is a bit late in the day, and it is hard to give credence to that. I am pleased that since today’s debate was announced, some of those involved in cases taken up by the CWIVA have had better offers. However, we cannot allow that last-minute action to let CIGA off the hook.

I have several requests for the Minister. I would like a full review of how the industry and CIGA operate. I want her to make a commitment to establishing genuinely independent oversight of the compensation arrangements. I ask her to change the regulatory regime so that the link between each energy company and each property is transparent and registered. Also, crucially, I would like every effort to be made to find out what additional historical information can be established. We must not just rectify problems for the future; we must deal with historical cases. I want the Minister to establish an independent assessment of properties at least one or two years after installation. That is the only way we will be able to understand the true scale of dampness caused by CWI. I also want her to introduce effective regulation of initial sales.

I have no doubt that there is fear in DECC that acknowledging the problems would discredit a key energy conservation policy, but the real danger to the credibility of the energy conservation programme lies in hushing the matter up. Many victims now question the whole idea of cavity wall insulation. Jeff Howell, the respected building correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, believes that all retrofit CWI is likely to cause problems. Is that true? I certainly hope not, and many organisations take a different view, but unless the Minister acts now, those doubts can only grow. We should not allow that to happen. We need an honest appraisal of the technology—where it works and where it does not—and we need effective redress for the victims.