Make of it what you will but in the current world political climate this clearly is not helpful and conducive to acceptance and understanding. The commercial damage to Rooftherm was non existent but other businesses that do not have the same level of security installed on their web sites may have been badly affected and damaged so this is not a victimless crime and a crime it is.

If we were paranoid we might even start believing that the competition are employing hackers to break competitive sites but that would be below most of our competitors save for one or two we know about who stoop to various shenanigans to try and gain competitive advantage. For example, we know one company that buys and registers competitive web site names with different domain endings than their competitive rival (info, org, com etc.) and then use redirects to their own site when these competitor domain names are typed in the web browser. I believe this activity is actually illegal and constitutes a Trading Standards offence but it does seem to have stopped these cowboys who no doubt import the cheap non fire rated polyurethane foams with illegal (in the UK) blowing agents that destroy the ozone layer.

Apparently interest free loans repayable over 4 years can be arranged to cover the full cost of installing polyurethane spray foam roof insulation so long as it can demonstrated that the potential energy savings over 5 years are equal or less than the investment cost. Hence, a commercial company can have roof insulation installed using polyurethane spray foam without increasing their current buildings cost, a ‘free investment’ if you like since the loan interest is free and the repayments are paid out of energy savings.

In my experience, most pre 1980 industrial units have inadequate roof insulation. The roof in these building is the biggest source of energy loss as expensive heated air is lost through the typically asbestos or steel sheet roof. Sprayed polyurethane is also an excellent foam spray seal that gets into all the nooks and crannies and seals the roof against air leakage, very important under the new 2006 Building Regulations.

Here at Rooftherm we specialise in spray foam polyurethane for industrial roof insulation. There is nothing as commercially effective as polyurethane foam insulation. Glass wool insulation is much less effective per depth and polyurethane foam can be installed in one third of the space needed and produce better results.

The new 2006 Building Regs now require lower U values for roofs. Air leakage in buildings is tackled for the first time under the new building regulations as this can be a major source of energy loss in a building. Minimising and preventing air leakage is easy with spray applied polyurethane foam as this will make buildings be relatively air leak proof. Sprayed polyurethane foam is also very quick and easy to install retrospectively with the only business disruption being the time taken to make cups of tea for the foam insulation installers!

Rooftherm can provide further details and do an energy efficiency assessment of pre 1980 industrial units. These units can often have the roof insulated as a ‘free investment’ as this is usually where the biggest returns are to be made to justify the investment cost. The investment cost is paid out of savings; the loan is interest free (qualifying businesses, SME’s with no dilution of ownership) and payback is typically within 3 to 5 years so savings thereafter feedback to the bottom line.

Something passed across my desk yesterday by way of a customer email in the form of “have you seen this web site”. It never ceases to amaze me the rubbish that gets printed on the internet. My customer had entitled his email “Muppets from roofing hell” and you’ll see why shortly.

From a company, advertising with the full support of Google on their Adsense network, a company with no real address and no name given of the person who runs the business and using its internet design company’s P O box number we get:

“… employing tools and techniques to ensure your roof is repaired to a quality standard set by British Standards …”

Firstly don’t we use tools and not employ them? And just what is the quality standard set by British Standards? Reassuring mumbo jumbo to the unsuspecting if you ask me. Complete rubbish in fact.

But there is more. “Class 0 (higher than statutory Class 1) coatings”. Where did that come from? There is nothing statutory about Class 1 or all the sellers of DIY spray foams would be in prison (they are not). Reading the rest of the site is not recommended as more gems are in store. By the way and in passing, there is currently no Class 0 foam polyurethanes on the UK market and to achieve class 0 another material is coated onto the polyurethane.

Moving on to more important things than web sites written by unsophisticated muppets, about a month ago we had an enquiry from a customer with a domestic asbestos roof with the asbestos tiles laid in a diamond pattern. At risk of repeating what I have written elsewhere, there are probably no domestic asbestos roofs left in the UK that are worth renovating and spray seal foam bonding. The reason is because most of these roofs have passed their sell by date with deteriation in the asbestos to the point that the tiles have become porous. Warning signs are a whitish stain on the inside (indicating porosity) and curling edges on the outside, usually moss infested too.

Anyway, without bothering to offer polyurethane foam roof insulation I offered a new roof clad in Ludlow plus tiles to match the neighbours. The customer was taken aback and suggested I think again and quote for renovation with spray foam explaining that 2 other spray foam companies had already done so. I politely pointed out that if that was the case he already had his answer irrespective of price of which company to place his trust and business with. After explaining to him the true state of his roof and why spray foam sealing would be a waste of time he duly agreed not to proceed down the renovation route and today he awarded us his roofing contract. We will dispose of his asbestos tiles by using a licensed asbestos contractor, renew the roof and spray foam the new tiles with 100 mm polyurethane roof insulation. And guess what, as it turned out, the company with the mumbo jumbo web site was one who had recommended spray foam renovation no doubt quoting “British Standards” as they did so.

This brings me back to where I started, if only more people who ply their trade in the roofing and insulation business actually knew what they were talking about then they would not bring the roofing industry into such disrepute that programs of the genre “roofers or builders from hell” or as my customer prefers “Muppets from roofing hell” would be needed.

At the time we explained to the customer that unless he was prepared to drop ceilings then we would be unable to guarantee that his slates would be bonded in skilling areas - areas where the ceiling board is up against the roof rafters and there is no way to satisfactorily spray the slates in these areas. What we did was our best to shoot controlled amounts of foam down into these areas to insulate and catch slates as best we could. Inevitably, the longer the skilling area the more difficult it becomes to ensure foam gets to all the right places and fully bonds to all the slates.

Now it was important to the customer not just to have roof insulation but to also have the roof bonded with polyurethane spray foam since the roof was 100 years plus suffering with nail fatigue. Basically, the nails were all practically rusted through and slates were beginning to slip in ever greater numbers each year. The customer needed a permanent fix and less cost than a re-roof. Polyurethane spray foam offered a low cost way to achieve this.

We quoted and won the work but also told the customer in writing that we could not guarantee that no slates would slip in the skilling areas unless he was prepared for the ceilings to come down. Understandably the customer did not want the mess and hassle of taking down and then reinstating ceilings. So, 6 months after we completed the work we are back this week to re-fix a slate that has slipped. The customer was very happy however since we had not pulled the wool over his eyes in the first place and he half expected that a few slates might indeed slip. Not only was he happy but he also gave us his sister as a recommendation who also called the same day. So a slipping slate resulted in a recommendation as well!

The moral of the story? Honesty keeps everyone happy and not labouring under false expectations and customers are happy to recommend you.

The weather has certainly been responsible for the record number of enquiries we have received in the last week. Poor insulation and badly leaking roofs all prompting a flood (to coin a phrase!) of enquiries. A trip down to Bristol revealed a young lady with a large house with the central heating turned up full tilt but with the house still freezing cold, it was warmer in my car! Alas, the roof was unsuitable to spray foam so we declined to quote and I resisted her protestation that another “respected and national” company had quoted her for foam roof insulation. I explained why the roof was unsuitable (tiles known to cause leaks by capillary action and recommended she invest in either a new roof and roof insulation or forget the idea. The roof had roofing felt but this was sagging all over the place and ripped. The roofing felt was needed with this type of tile as a final barrier. Polyurethane roof grade foam is unsuitable as a final water barrier as it its slightly open cell structure will eventually let water pass through. This type of foam is water resistant and not water proof and what this young lady needed was a water proof barrier if this roof was not to leak into the loft area.

Anyway, I left the idea with her that the roof was unsuitable to spray foam as is. Time will tell if she takes my advice or goes with the “respected and national” company. I will report progress as an interesting “our advice us against the competitions” situation where I know the advice we gave is 100% correct and let readers know what the customer has decided to do.

This led me to think about con men and rogue traders. If a company cannot be honest in their advertising then clearly no consumer should have any faith in using that company, what other lies are they trying to get you to swallow? But how does a consumer evaluate and establish who are the con men and rogue traders? It seems help is at hand; contact Local Trading Standards if you are at all suspicious of a trader. Also, check web sites like http:// www.blagger.com and http://www.vetted.com/ to see if anyone else has raised concern about the company in question.

And always speak to existing customers of the company, ask for 10 or more references of the last 10 jobs completed, not the usual 2 or 3 because even rogue traders are astute enough to ensure that their brother and uncle will give a good reference. It becomes harder to manufacturer references the more there are and the more recent, ask for the last 10 rolling jobs completed as the references you take up. If you do not get this (all Rooftherm customers get this, we automatically ask each customer if they are happy to act as a reference, we have not had one customer refuse) or the company refuses claiming rubbish about data protection and so on then you already have your answer.

http://www.dow.com/buildingproducts/frothpak/faq.htm#faq15

“Is FROTH-PAK fire rated?
No. FROTH-PAK is not a fire rated foam. “

and

“Is FROTH-PAK flammable?
Cured FROTH-PAK foam itself is NOT flammable, but it is combustible. The foam will burn if exposed to sparks or flames, and it will present a fire hazard if exposed to temperatures above 240°F. See Fire Rating Issues.”

and

“Warning: The foam produced by FROTH-PAK is organic and combustible and may constitute a fire hazard. Do not expose foam to flame or temperatures above 240°F (116°C).”

Our article can be found at:
Roof Insulation - a Spray Foam DIY Proposition?

We would welcome any comments from anyone who thinks we have misinformed. Seriously.

Apparently this distributor wrote to claim that the Froth Pak kits they supplied were B2 fire rated. There is no mention of B2 ratings on Dow’s web site in relation to Froth Pak’s. To be fair to the distributor, they did send us a copy of the laboratory reports (German) they had supporting the fact that the chemical they were supplying was B2 rated but the report itself did not specifically mention anywhere “Dow Froth Pak”. It did make a reference to the word as a trade name “134A Froth”. Presumably they are the same thing?

The B2 fire rating is used mainly on continental Europe and is originally a German standard. As we understand it, the German B2 fire rating standard is equivalent to rating Class E BS EN11925-2 in the UK which describes materials meeting this requirement as moderately flammable. The test itself is no where near as stringent as a BS Class 1 fire test. British Standard class 1 has been become over the years the de facto standard for the polyurethane spray foam industry in the UK. But more to the point, BS 476 part 6/7 under current building regulations can only be met by class 0 and 1 materials. In other words, a B2 rated product does not meet this requirement. We are also at a loss to understand why a distributor to the UK market would obtain a German laboratory B2 rating. It appears to us that if you are marketing to the UK building industry then you would use UK standards, e.g. BS EN11925-2. Such testing is done by the Building Research Establishment at relatively little cost and the fire certificate would carry a UK standard.

Our advice is very simple. We do not believe that a B2 or Class E rated polyurethane has any place in the roof of a building due to the increased fire risk hazard and it certainly has no place in a public building under current Building Regulations. And the vast majority of the UK spray foam polyurethane industry supports this view. The insurance industry generally has a hard time accepting anything less than Class 1; they have no intention of seeing their profits go up in smoke! Try obtaining insurance on a building where B2 rated materials have been used and you’ll likely be disappointed. The solution to us is simple, supply the UK market with Class 1 rated kits. We believe there are a number of such rated kits coming onto the UK market. Perhaps we should become a distributor of Class 1 kits ourselves?!

Heat energy is primarily lost from a dwelling by three main methods, conduction, convection and radiation. The aluminium foil method is said to effectively stop radiated heat energy and partially stop convection and conduction. Most other insulation products work by preventing conduction and convection heat escape so clearly this product has an advantage as it will also prevent radiation heat escape.

I will digress for a moment before coming back to foil insulation. The building regulations require that buildings are so designed and built so as to minimise cold bridging. Cold bridges are foamed when heat can be conducted out of a dwelling by, for example, steel work. Timber joists and rafters are also now considered to offer a method of heat escape by conduction and are now treated as cold bridges. The design and build of a building needs to take this into account and insulation board or spray foam is typically used to insulate the bridging material and stop conduction. Cold bridges can be minimised but it is inevitable that a number of points will still remain that will act as cold bridges, we after all have to fix something to something which needs to be fixed etc. Spray foam minimises cold bridges in a loft conversions, for example, because it can be sprayed top side of the rafter and prevents the rafter from conducting heat to the tiles or slates. Timber laths will still present an area of cold bridging but the footprint they present is minimal when compared to the whole and can be ignored since the design has minimised the main cold bridge, the rafter itself. Spray foam systems have been successfully applied to loft and barn conversions using this method for quite a good many years now and all give good excellent insulation values if installed at recommend depths (minimum 75mm), well within the building regulations U value limits.

Now, the aluminium foil method clearly does not minimise cold bridging since it is compressed at the point battens are affixed. Moreover, aluminium being highly conductive will exacerbate a timber cold bridge. This immediately throws up the question as to whether or not an aluminium foil system can ever comply with building regulations. An aluminium foil systems will present large cold bridges so it is doubtful if it can be used in loft conversions just on this point alone.

Next comes the question of the claimed U value achieved. There is on this point a paucity of independent and creditable scientific data. Rooftherm will watch this space but it is interesting that a number of polyurethane foam manufactures have challenged the claims made by the aluminium foil insulation system and have conducted independent laboratory testing. This testing seems to indicate that the U value achieved is in fact greater than 1, a not very impressive figure and hopelessly short of complying with building regulations as to be not a viable method. The only conclusion Rooftherm can come to at this stage is that we cannot offer it as a solution to our customers since the jury is still out on this method of insulating. We do intend however to follow this up and see which way the claims and counter claims go.

For the record we have no axe to grind one way or the other on aluminium foil insulation systems. If it is conclusively proved to work and accepted by building control inspectors in the way that spray foam is we would offer it as an option for roof insulation, we have even set up accounts for the purpose but await fuller and more scientific testing before recommending it to our customers.

Whilst in Cyprus, which was surprisingly cold given its Mediterranean location, I wore a jacket most days. What was particularly interesting was that all new housing developments had moved quite positively in the direction of energy efficient homes. Whilst perhaps rather unsightly, all new homes incorporated a hot water heating system on the roof using solar power. My wife was interested in looking at the new homes, not that we are remotely in a financial position to consider buying, so we went along and had a good look at the new homes being built around Paphos. Naturally I was interested in the built in home energy efficiency and was very impressed with the central hot water heating systems. I tested the water and it was very hot even on overcast days. Free hot water, excellent!

Well, not quite free because the cost of installing the heating system has to be considered. On questioning a few of the builders on site I managed to ascertain that the average home hot water system was being installed for circa £4,000 Cypriot pounds, about £5000 in pound sterling. So, not a whim investment but certainly one that makes sense if we look at life cycle energy running costs of a home given that the system has a predicted life expectancy of 50 years plus. Maintenance is practically zero so the system will pay back within 5 years over the cost of a conventionally installed system. Given that conventional systems are big users of the home energy budget and that the cost of energy is headed one way, way up, then the pay back of solar systems will be shorter than 5 years, possibly within just 3.

The developer had been in contact with us because, despite putting in ventilation in the form of air bricks to vent the loft void, the roof was suffering from a really excessive amount of condensation. This developer has not been alone with this problem; this has well and truly been the year for condensation, a large number of rainy and overcast days followed by low daytime and very cold night time temperatures being the factors causing the problem.

Condensation forms when water vapour within the air comes into contact with a colder than air surface. The ability of water vapour to remain vapour drops at the surface contact resulting in droplets of water. Scientifically, the average energy of the water vapour molecules drop at the colder surface contact as heat energy gets conducted out; as the average energy level drops around the cold surface the water vapour undergoes a change in phase and becomes liquid, i.e. condensation.

Now the problem was indeed quite bad. The loft void had created its own micro climate. Condensation was occurring on the steel roof sheets and was running and dripping off onto the mineral wool insulation laid at ceiling height within the loft void. The mineral wool was getting saturated, and we mean saturated like a sponge! Water was dripping out of light fittings in the ceiling and the developer had thoughtfully placed buckets under the lights! Needless to say ceiling, walls and decorations were becoming progressively ruined. The new owners of the flats were putting their central heating systems on and, without any insulation in the ceilings since the mineral wool was sodden wet, the warmth of the air was evaporating off the water within the mineral wool and recycling the condensation back again - a sort of mini Amazon rain forest effect. It was described by one of the spray team on the job as like a dripping tap that could not be turned off, as fast as they tried to dry the steel sheets with towels the condensation came straight back.

The solution involved removing all the mineral wool since this was acting as a condensation recycling unit, putting in commercial dehumidifiers and fans to dry the air and evaporate off any remaining condensation, a process that took about 3 days. Once the condensation has been stabilised, Rooftherm sprayed an anti condensation coating of polyurethane spray foam to the underside of the steel sheets. Since the polyurethane has to be bonded to the steel sheet it clearly helps if the sheet is dry before we start spraying. Polyurethane foam is such a good insulator it prevents the water vapour within the air from coming into contact with the colder than air steel sheets thus preventing condensation.

So, condensation problem eventually solved but not before new loft hatches had to be cut into the ceilings due to the size of the equipment needed to be lugged into the loft void to cure the problem. The sprayers became super heroes for the week by the flat owners but I am afraid the developer did not want to come on site and run the gauntlet preferring to give instructions by mobile phone a safe distance away from the development!

• to comply with Building Regulations or Standards
• to reduce heat loss
• to reduce running costs
• to control temperatures
• to reduce the risk of freezing
• to provide condensation control
• to reduce heating plant capacity

These all sound like corporate objectives to me, did the writer just have a staff appraisal before he wrote that?

We would not need any insulation if we humans did not get cold or become too hot! I don’t doubt the financial arguments of installing insulation but we as a company never get an enquiry where the customer says that they want to make an investment in insulation but rather they want to keep warm and there ice box home means that the heating boiler can’t keep up!

Funny how the human has been taken out of it when the insulation argument resolves around “investment” as my reasons for installing insulation would be:

• to have a warm home in winter and a cool home in summer so that I am more comfortable
• to achive quicker warm up time, slower cool down times so that I am more comfortbale
• more stable indoor temperature so that I am more comfortable
• to have a warm, cosy home, not an ice box, so that I am more comfortable
• to have more affordable heating and cooling systems so that I am more comfortable with my wallet

Of course the financial arguments all make sense too but the human condition means we want to stay warm when it is cold and stay cool when it is hot. And that is the reason why we install insulation, for human comfort. Would you install insulation otherwise?

To be fair, I do get on the odd ocassion a customer who says that the “pay back” is too long. They have got their calculators out, calculated I don’t know what and then come to a conclusion that the “investment” is not as good as keeping the money in the bank. Stay cold then, contribute more to green house gases and be happy.

The only problem with the advertisement, as I saw it, was the fact that the window they were showing was a Roto Colt, a competitive product to the Velux range of windows. This is almost certainly a trading standards offence as a potential customer would be misled by the picture. I can’t imagine that Velux and Roto themselves would be too happy about this either. Don’t be misled, Rooftherm only offer and install genuine Velux roof windows. In our view Velux offer a top quality product and one we can fit and forget without receiving any future customer complaints. Price is forgotten over the long run as the investment pays off and the quality shines through. You pay for what you get which is why we only install Velux with due respect to other window manufacturers.

One customer told me he was placing his order with us on the basis that not only did we provide a prompt and competitive quote but because we never once engaged in rubbishing our competition. He had contacted 5 other companies and all had without exception “slagged” each other off when he mentioned who he was getting quotes from. We had not done that, far from it he said, we recommended several spray foam companies that the customer might like to deal with if we could not help. Hopefully, as the spray foam polyurethane industry matures there will be less silly behaviour and all companies will service an expanding and competitive market without the need to rubbish each other. Rubbishing in fact just serves to rubbish the industry.

Why some companies feel it necessary to rubbish their competitors, their own industry in fact, is beyond me. It is certainly not intelligent. Perhaps they do it in a misguided sense that it will help them win the order. But it seldom does amongst increasingly more educated buyers, buyers who have done their homework and know what they are buying and from who; the company’s reputation and standards. I know how I feel when someone starts to rubbish the competition, I turn off completely and work on the basis that they would say that but it will not negatively influence my decision against anyone they rubbish. In fact it influences my decision against the company doing the rubbishing. If they are so confident in their product and service they provide why do they feel it will positively influence me to buy from them when they try to rubbish the competition? It won’t and it doesn’t.

We work on the basis of trying to help our customers understand the product polyurethane spray foam, what it can do and can’t do, what applications are suitable and what are not, what benefits and the payback they will get, the costings and always striving to give excellent value for money and a very competitive quote for any work that the customer may require. Rubbishing our competition fits in nowhere here, in fact our competition, the quality decent companies we know of will be recommended if we cannot do the work within the customer’s timescales, and sometimes we can’t because of order book commitments. This helps the whole industry and gives a positive perception to the customer. Everyone is a winner even when we don’t do the work.

So, what rubbish it is to try to start to rubbish your competition.

A developer in Romford had built new apartment units in the autumn and had followed the architect’s designs throughout. The roof called for powder coated steel sheets and the insulation in this building was designed to be installed at loft ceiling level to meet the building regulations for U value. All well and good, plans passed etc. The buildings had been erected in the autumn and new owners had started to move in during December and January.

The first the developer knew that there was a problem was when one of the very first owners to move in complained of water staining on his new ceiling in the bedroom about 3 weeks after moving in. A week later another new owner complained of staining on the ceiling and then another. One could be isolated, two could be a coincidence but three water staining complaints is definitely a trend! On inspection it was found that the fibre wool insulation was completely sodden, totally wet through. At first a roof leak was suspected but it became apparent that the roof was watertight and that the real cause of all the damp was condensation.

Condensation is caused when water vapour within the air meets a surface at lower temperature and reduces the average energy of the water vapour within the air such that condensation occurs. On a steel sheet which has high conductivity, the steel will drag the air temperature down sufficiently where air meets the steel sheets such that any water vapour within the air condenses out.

So, with a large steel roof a major design fault had been incorporated within the building despite the loft area seemingly being adequately ventilated. The ventilation was never going to be sufficient to cope with the speed that the large expanse of steel was sucking the warmth out of the air. As air temperature drops the ability of water to remain vapour is reduced and it will condensate out typically first on the coldest surface, in our case the steel roof. As the average air temperature dropped near the steel roof water droplets formed and dripped off the steel into the mineral wool insulation below. The mineral wool acted as a sponge and transmitted the water down into the ceiling boards. Where after some time the ceiling plaster board sucks in the wet and stains appear on the underside.

So we know what the problem is and what is causing the condensation problem but what is the solution? Well the problem was easily remedied by providing an anti-condensation coating of polyurethane spray foam. The foam was sprayed at 120 degrees and 600 psi to ensure an excellent bonding with the steel. Polyurethane is such an excellent insulator that air and steel within the loft the steel are separated and the foam presents a “warm” surface and so water vapour will not condense on it. We also recommended that the steel joists used in the roof construction were similarly coated since they will produce sufficient cold bridging to cause condensation to form on them. Our advice was accepted.

And the water staining on the plasterboard? Well no easy solution other than take down all the boards and put new ceilings up. Once plasterboard gets soaked the boards looses strength and will eventually bow and possible drop down, not something a new home owner would be prepared to tolerate on a new house.

Well, I took a look at the web site involved, a new kid on the block in terms of polyurethane spray foam, never heard of them and nor has anyone else except perhaps the few sub contractors this company must obviously be using. To quote some of their web site: “Class 0 (higher than statutory Class 1) coatings available for additional fire resistance”

Well, I’ve never in all my time knew that Class 1 was statutory, well done new kid for educating the rest of the spray foam industry. In point of fact Class 1 simply designates that the foam meets the British Standard (there is a similar US standard also designated Class 1) Surface Spread of Flame when tested to BS 476 Part 7. There is nothing statutory about a foam having to meet Class 1 which explains why a number of contractors import cheap continental polyurethane foams (the resin or polyol part mainly imported from Spain) that do not offer fire resistance to BS Class 1. That is okay as long as the customer knows what they are buying but we have long suspected at Rooftherm that the customer has been kidded.

It is easy enough to tell if you have fire resistant foam, simply take a small sample of the contractors foam, place it outside on a concrete slab and with a lighted taper try and set light to it. The result you get will tell you what sort of foam you are dealing with! A fire resistant foam will slightly char and smoulder and when you take the taper away there should be no flame on the foam. The foam resists the spread of flame. I’ll leave to your imagination what happens in the case of a non fire resistant foam except to give a big health tip, stand well back!

“Achieves U/values from 0.981 to 0.160”. What does? The foam? U value is governed by two factors, the substrate and the thickness of foam applied to the substrate. Given the substrate, increase the thickness of foam and you lower the U value. And the U value under Building Regulations is a composite of the structure so it becomes more complicated to calculate the U value, it is not simply a question of a certain thickness of foam always gives a certain U value, it does not!

“BUFCA approved contractors” As far as I am aware BUFCA is an independent contractors association, basically pay your dues and you are in the club. It does not have a Royal Charter which would really give it some meaning. BUFCA has nice ideas but I have yet to see them take sanction against any member. But to come back to the point, they do not approve or disapprove of contractors who work in the polyurethane spray foam industry. Looking at the list of members I can only see two that are accredited to ISO 9001. This really gives the game away; this firm is using sub contractors and does not do the work itself. Obviously they do not sub contract the work for free so you must pay more than if you contracted the contractor. I would be more impressed if they said they only use contractors accredited to ISO 9001, the two forms so accredited do not do sub contract work. The conclusion? You will be using non ISO accredited contractors. And this is the standard that the rest of British Industry and the Construction Industry subscribes to.

Just in passing I see that the “company” has a PO Box number address which actually turns out to be the PO Box number address of a media and web Design Company. Not a good omen especially if you need to get hold of the owners. The site also uses pictures I am sure I have seen on other contractor sites. The free phone number seems customer friendly enough but my money would be on a redirect.

I could go on a really take apart the claims made but sufficient has been said that despite seeing a very nice looking web site complete with flash effects, who are you really dealing with? A company that has no real address and no real contact telephone number and a company that must inevitably charge you more to save since it is totally reliant on non ISO 9001 accredited contractors. Oh, I nearly forgot the best bit, a “company” (because for sure I don’t really know what it is, a web design company generating leads perhaps?) not in “BUFCA” but promising us that it only uses BUFCA approved contractors”. Go on BUFCA, sort that one out.

Google Adwords is still the wild west in terms of no real control over the legitimacy and factual content of web sites that the ads lead to. This is a striking case in point. Even sadder is the fact that it is within my own industry since all this will do is destroy consumer confidence in dealing with the legitimate spray foam companies.

I’ll explain what I mean. Whenever I do a Google search I get interesting web sites come up that look to have what I am interested in. For example, we have been looking for a new pick up today so I try the ones I am interested in, Ford Thunder, Nissan Navara, Mitsubishi Animal and so on. Put in “Nissan Navara pickup” which seems the obvious search term to use if you are interested in one of those and you get a list of promising web sites to look at that might give you what you want, a review of the vehicle, features, models, prices, dealers etc. And indeed you do get this but sprinkled in with the results are far to many of those “shop here and click on me.com” sites where all you get is a list of other web sites that might have the information you seek. The trouble is they tempt you in and then you find your time has been wasted because the site does not actually contain the information you want but just presents a list of other web sites.

These “click-on-me.com” sites are more to do with the web site owner wanting to generate click through revenue. Google pays the site owner a percentage fee of the advertising revenue generated. Revenue is generated from the advertiser every time someone clicks on the advertising web site link. An advertiser places an advert with Google which then gets listed on participating Google network advertising sites. Basically, web site owners who want Google ads to appear on their web site. The ads also appear when you do a web search under “sponsored links” on Google’s search page, you see the ads at the very top and at the right hand side of the page.

Now it would not be so bad if these “click-on-me.com” sites added some value like actually collating and presenting the information in a more informative way than the raw Google search results pages. But they do not; simply give a whole bunch of listed web links, each one earning the web site owner money if you happen to click on any of the links. These are what I call bad “good” since at first site you think you have found a good web site to look at. And these sites are coming up in searches far too often, adding questionable value to your search experience meanwhile lapping up advertiser revenue for nothing because I get the hell out of these sites once I see what they are about. Some almost trick you into clicking onto them and then try and get you to click a bunch of links that earn them money.

So, I have had quite a frustrating day visiting far too many “click-on-me.com” sites. Then it dawned on me, what is the experience of web searchers looking for the products and services we supply? Not good I am afraid. Again, web sites have been built with the sole intention of earning advertising revenue from click throughs rather than adding value to the searcher.

Do a Google for “Polyurethane” and you’ll find all kinds of sites that are basically there to generate revenue for the web site owner. Google clearly needs to control this spread of web sites that are nothing more than link sites or genuine sites will be lost in the morass.

If you believe you can judge a book by its cover then you will sign up with this company. A veneer of superficial respectability, nice gloss, and they talk a good talk. But according to Jeff that is as far as it went. The job they did was absolutely appalling. Jeff has kindly consented to act as a reference against this company so if you are interested email me and I will forward you Jeff’s contact details and all he need do is talk the truth.

The catalogue of errors this company performed reads like this:

This company agreed to replace broken, cracked, chipped slates. They left slipped and cracked slates. Read “cowboys”

This company agreed to renew the lead soakers and lead flashings to his chimney. They did not; they just coated his visible lead in a clear silicon coating. Read “cowboy” job.

This company agreed to provide a 25 year guarantee. They have refused to attend to his leaking roof and refused to put right the completely sub standard polyurethane foam install. They have not. Read deceit.

This company left Jeff with a leaking roof. Read “should be banned from the industry association they belong to and put on Watch Dog”. Rooftherm does not belong to that association and never will with members like that are associated and not policed even by the rules of that association.

This company did little to no preparation before spraying polyurethane foam; all loose touching (mortar back pointing) was left with not the slightest attempt to remove it according to Jeff. Read “cowboys”.

Now for the worst bit. They had charged Jeff for this completely cowboy job more than double what Rooftherm would have quoted. It is a real shame because Jeff only discovered us after his local trading standards officer suggested he contact us for advice. And because Jeff refused to pay the balance for the job, and rightly so, until they had rectified the job they immediately fired off letters threatening to take court leagl action and sue him. Well, what respectable company ever gets itself into a situation where it takes legal action against its own customers?! Understandably Jeff has lost all confidence in this company and refuses to let them cross his threshold ever again.

The upshot is that Jeff wants to contract us to put right the shoddy work done by this company. What should you do if you contract a company but get a completely shoddy job? Contact the following, Trading Standards, Citizens Advice, Trade Associations, your solicitor, a competitor, all of which Jeff did to get a resolution best for him.

So with “industry” consultation but not actually, it seems, any consultation with the people actually footing the bill, house sellers, Prescott wants us to be only allowed to sell our houses with a “home information pack”. So he is has created the law to ensure this. I may be old fashioned and considered therefore cynical, but it seems the whole information pack scheme is another area of creeping Government control, control that will raise yet more taxes and create yet more Government jobs for the boys.

Let’s explore this information pack scheme further. As part of the home information pack something new has crept in that was not formerly part of the house selling process. Each domestic freehold property or domestic leasehold property with more than 21 years of the lease to run that is put up for sale in 2007 must include an energy efficiency statement. Details on who exactly will carry out this energy efficiency audit are a little vague as the Government intends to license “home inspectors” by a certification program. Home inspectors will presumably be competent to assess the property for energy efficiency which presupposes that there will be some kind of standard that the property is assessed against. Now these “home inspectors” will be licensed and controlled by the Government and you can’t sell your house without one. For license read annual renewal and payment of dues which means it is just another stealth tax ultimately on home owners. For “home inspector” read another body controlled by the Government where the house seller is totally dependent on because the law will say you have no where else to go. You will have to use Government controlled, certificated and licensed “home inspectors”. No mention yet if you disagree with the “home inspector” on what he writes about on your home so you can half guess it will be populated with little job worth’s types.

Building regulations are not retro active so this could be a back door method to put pressure onto sellers into upgrading the energy efficiency of their property. Installing better insulation, more thermally efficient appliances and so on will be required if the property is assessed as below the “modern energy efficiency standards”. Properties build before April 2006 will all likely fail the revised building regulations for energy efficiency as new regulations from that date will be introduced moving the goal posts significantly for insulation levels. So, virtually every UK property if assessed in 2007 will fail the energy audit if based upon the building regulations in force at that time. The pressure on the seller will be to ensure that they only get ticks against the energy efficiency audit. For most sellers this will typically mean upgrading the insulation levels within the property.

If the home fails the audit one of the best ways to beat the “energy efficiency statement” is to retro fit polyurethane foam to a pitched roof. Surprisingly, most houses do not have pitched roof insulation. This is ironic because this is the number one source of heat loss. Spray applied polyurethane foam is the best commercially available insulation enjoying a 2 to 8 times better insulation factor per depth over any other home insulation products. Also, polyurethane spray foam seals and draft proofs and eliminates condensation too. For most homes it can be fitted in a day and will last the life of the property proving to be an excellent investment, saving energy, saving money, providing a more comfortable home and will help save the planet for your grand children.

I don’t disagree with the Government for trying to raise insulation standards but I do disagree with the element of back door compulsion that I can see the home information pack will introduce by proxy. What if in the future the Government introduce legislation to say you cannot sell your home unless it meets a “standards minimum score”. Too late for us, they will already have the apparatus of control at work via licensed “home inspectors” and a tool they can forever tweak to suit their own agenda, “the home information pack”.

And the cost of Prescott’s good work will on average be £635.00 per house sold? Do me a favour! A licensed and certificated body of “home inspectors” is never likely to have a totally free market rate (as if we voted for them in the first place) and introducing “new checks to improve standards” (read stealth taxes) can only escalate the cost. 5 years from now the “home inspectors” report, will be more than double that of 2007 due to the license dues the Government will collect, a perfect stealth tax because the Government will claim it is not them charging you but home inspectors! Besides you can always shop around for a home inspector charging less. A bit like the legal profession really. I have a feeling that the present market method of selling a property, imperfect as it is, is actually a lower cost way of buying and selling for both parties, Come year 2010 or whenever, when to produce a home information pack costs you £2000 (I am not joking, it will get there) we will fondly remember the days of old as the best. But there again, I’m just an old fashioned type who refuses to move with the times so by definition is cynical. Remember, you read it here first and I told you so. Rant over!

One enquiry was about an extension to house in the planning phase where the roof was going to double up as a roof terrace, slabbed over and used as the patio above the single storey extension. I presume they would also have a staircase leading up to the patio. Their dilemma was to achieve a 0.2 U value for the flat roof come ceiling as they were going to build a reinforced concrete slab over the extension so that the terrace would be on top. Compounded with this was the fact that headroom in the new extension would be tight. One problem I pointed out was that the construction was due to take place after April 2006 when the building regulations change and will require even lower U values to be achieved then. U values measures the heat lost through a building material or composite material, measured in watts per square metre at one degree Centigrade (technically Kelvin) temperature gradient difference between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ sides of the constructed ‘material’. I believe the U value come April will require 0.16 meaning that typical industrial spray applied polyurethane depths to achieve this will be 120 mm plus and given the variation in spray depth 140 mm nominal may have to be specified to ensure a minimum 120 mm is actually coated. The proposed solution called for 300 mm of mineral above a ceiling board held up by 100*50 mm joists with a 50 mm continuous ventilation gap above the mineral wool to avoid condensation with ample air bricks either side to provide the continuous ventilation. No wonder head room was an issue, with the mineral wool solution losing a best part of a foot and half in height!

Another enquiry was about a steel tower. They had already had the tower fabricated to put onto the supporting brickwork and it was going to be bolted down. All well and good but what about the U value and condensation control I asked. Simple solution really, spray foam polyurethane solves both problems by being heat welded direct to the steel, with no air gap behind the polyurethane as it is bonded direct to the steel so there is not a condensation issue on the steel tower itself and the depth of foam governs the U value achieved to meet the U value specified. And we can retro fit the polyurethane foam and spray in situ. Another problem solved for a customer who thought he would have to send the tower to us for spraying or find some system to double skin the tower and provide ventilation to the upper skin to avoid condensation.

On another note a surveyor called from a very well respected firm to pick my brains as he put it. No problem fire away. It was quickly evident that he was not aware of the forthcoming April changes in the building regulations. Now if these professional firms cannot keep up with the changes what chance has the small jobbing builder? April 2006 will prove to be an interesting month and it will be interesting to see how local authority building control inspectors educate and help their ‘clients’ understand and apply the regulations or just refuse to pass new build that does not meet the new building regulations. In my experience, I have both met types, the really helpful building control inspector who goes out of his/her way to help, offers advice and comes up with solutions (though not officially ‘allowed’!) and the obstructive jobs worth. Hopefully it will be the former. There is clearly a need within the construction industry for this sort of information to reach the people that need to know; a simple way would be for the government to post update booklets on mass to every single building merchants in the country, after all, there cannot be any builder who does not have to go to a builders’ merchant? But no, this will not happen. Ironic that these services (government) are paid for by taxes but the service back is non existent. The suits create their towers on our backs, the overalls do the work and take the wrath of offficialdom for being ignorant. That’s my rant for today!

Well, ever keen to promote excellent customer service at Rooftherm, we have paid a staff member (me!) to come in to ensure our telephone lines are manned even though we do not really expect any telephone calls on a Bank Holiday. Well we did get a call as it happens (and a few more besides), a gentleman originally from England who now lives in Germany.

He basically wanted a quotation for spray foam polyurethane to be installed in his property in Germany. Fair enough. But here was his angle. He told me, naively as it turned out, that he wanted us to provide a quote but that he had already arranged for another company to come and do the work in Germany. After some questions and skilful probing, his deal with this company turned out to be rather simple and costless to both parties. They had both conspired this little plot; get Rooftherm to do the survey and all the pre sale work and then they will take over and do the work at whatever price Rooftherm quotes. They would simply price match whatever specification and price we had spent resource and time working out. A bit easy and a totally unethical way to do and promote business but fair is fair I thought, we can return the compliment. I hope they both enjoyed this one. I faxed him a conditional quote that simply said £1.00. Fair enough?!