Controls emerge from the shadows

At the launch of a new qualification for building controls engineers,  Building Controls Industry Association (BCIA) President Steve Harrison told a story about the time 15 years ago when his company was struggling to attract the right calibre of new staff.
They had plenty of interest in two posts for controls engineers, but were rebuffed by a number of potential recruits because there was no appropriate professional qualification on offer at the end of the training period.
‘The best we could give them was qualified electrician status,’ he told guests during the high profile launch event held in The Shard. ‘We knew it wasn’t really appropriate for the skill level involved in the job, but there was nothing else.’
So it was with some delight that he was able to unveil the Building Controls Professional Assessment (BCPA) last month.  This has been developed to give apprentices, and existing industry operatives, a professional qualification at the end of their vocational training – a badge that will be recognised across the industry and by all the sector’s employers.
Stepping stone
The BCPA is a stepping stone to full engineering status for the controls profession and can be used as a launch pad for suitably qualified operatives to move onto a fully-fledged engineering degree and, eventually, chartered engineer.
This is a huge leap forward for the controls industry.  It offers the trappings of ‘professional’ status for an industry that has long struggled to emerge from the shadows despite its vital role in making buildings work properly.
More HVAC equipment is supplied with controls already on-board these days putting even more emphasis on the integration strategy to make multiple ‘intelligent’ system components interoperate – particularly as buildings become more complex.
Challenge
Integration, more generally, is rapidly becoming the most critical aspect of building services engineering. Adding renewables to existing buildings and trying to make them work in tandem with conventional heating and cooling systems is a huge challenge – successes are still depressingly rare.  With experience this will get easier, but without a proper integration strategy there is no chance. Contractors have to crack this problem because we cannot afford to be continually returning to sites to put things right – there is no profit in spending precious time firefighting.
That is why we at B&ES see the launch of this new qualification as extremely important and timely. We are also delighted to be working more closely with the controls industry via the BCIA as we seek to bring our professions closer together to deliver buildings that do not disappoint their owners.
This is something the two associations will be focusing on heavily during the rest of this year culminating in a major conference at the Barbican on November 27 – find full details of the Building Services Summit here.

Just because the market's heating up, there's no reason new homes should too

In his latest installment of his diary of a new house purchase, David Frise finds it hard to keep his cool

In the coming months the problem is certainly not under-heating but significant overheating. Temperatures in the third floor apartments regularly topped 34oC last summer. As you’ll know from my previous blogs, this is just one of a series of problems with the new build flat purchased froma major listed builder.Now that spring is here and the sun is visible through the smog, we have turned the heating off in our flat. It is as warm as toast and was very cosy for those long winter nights. In the spring the heating is rarely necessary as the building retains the heat very well. 

The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ Environmental Design guide defines overheating as “conditions when the comfortable internal temperature threshold of 28oC is surpassed for over 1% of the time.” In my flat block temperatures exceed these comfort levels, as the flats are almost fully glazed south facing with no solar shading, not even a tree. Exposed as they are to the sun from about 11.00 to 19.00, they bake.

One certainty in the world is that the sun will rise and traverse the sky across an entirely predictable path. The ancient builders of Stonehenge knew this, but apparently the modern housebuilder does not

As reported in Building last month, a recent Good Homes Alliance report highlighted this issue but the House Builders Association said Part L of Building Regulations was to blame for specifying levels of airtightness that were too high, causing them to overheat. This may be true, but I don’t think the Building Regulations require you to build south facing, full height glazing with no solar shading.

The SAP calculation sheet describes “Thames Valley overheating risk: negligible”. But one certainty in the construction world is that the sun will rise and set and traverse the sky across an entirely predictable path. The resultant solar gain in our buildings is therefore, likewise, entirely predictable. The ancient builders of Stonehenge knew this, but apparently the modern housebuilder does not. Our builder has said they will “investigate”, which, like the Private Eye  EUphemisms cartoon says, means “ignore it”.

The problem is not helped by windows that cannot be fixed open, so that a gust of wind causes them to blow either open or shut with considerable force - a danger to little fingers. Not a safety issue in the view of the developer though, as a window that can be fixed open is not a requirement of the Building Regulations. We wedge ours open with an old copy of Building, which seems appropriate.

Then there are the corridors, sealed passages that rarely drop below 28oC summer and winter. The SAP calculation claims that pre-insulated pipework has been installed. If they had installed the extra thickness would probably have meant we’d have to stoop in the corridors. But it makes it easier to get a pass on the SAP calculation if you say it’s there, and who is going to check?

This is further exacerbated by the absence of controls to slow or turn off the pumps when there is no heat or hot water demand in the apartments, eg. at night. So the pumps keep pumping hot water through the building 24 hours a day seven days a week. As residents we have no access to the Building Management System BMS so we can’t get them turned off, and I’m still waiting for that commissioning report from the builder – the one that the Building Regulations require.

Does all this make the occupants “collateral damage” in the war against carbon? If that’s so, then how about a product recall – actually we got this wrong, how can we put it right?

So are those Building Regulations “for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”, or are they just an excuse to absolve you of responsibility?

This relationship isn't working

In his latest blog exposing the reality of buying a new build home in the UK, David Frise looks at the tangled mess organisations he has to deal with to try and get things done

Living in a new purpose built 56-apartment block can be very confusing. There are so many people in this relationship but none of them want to commit. There’s the freeholder (there have been two in 18 months), leaseholders, tenants, a housing association, a managing agent for the leaseholders, a managing agent for the freeholder, and the developer.

Where do they all fit in? The developer was the first freeholder. his is very convenient for them because they can claim all defects in the communal areas are their own problem and therefore don’t need to be rectified. However, they then sold the freehold to a very large insurance provider, without bothering to inform the leaseholders. This is not supposed to happen given the first right of refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Now the new freeholder has insured the building, at leaseholders’ expense, with a well known national insurance company that just happens to share the same name as the freeholder. How convenient, I’m sure. But not very good for the poor leaseholders, as the premium would appear to be, shall we say, uncompetitive.

Now this is probably all above board but when I asked for an explanation of how the managing agent tested the market and how much commission was paid, I was told “any commercial arrangement we may or may not have with our brokers to receive a share of their income to contribute towards our own administration costs and expenses is confidential”. I bet it is.

There is no question of the housebuilder sorting out the defect and arguing with the water company afterwards: they don’t do customer care.

This just looks wrong, if there is nothing to hide you would be open about it wouldn’t you? It is, however, perfectly legal. There is no one we can turn to for help – I tried the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Association of British Insurers (ABI) for a code of practice, the Information Commissioner (ICO) and the Leaseholder Advisory Service (LAS). None of whom could help, as from the FCA perspective, I wasn’t the holder of the insurance policy (just paying for it), the ABI referred me to the insurer, the ICO said the information was not about people, and the LAS agreed I did not have a right to this information. I can ask to see a copy of the invoice but that is unlikely to show the commission paid.

So the leaseholders are expected to stump up the premium on a building that the owner insures through itself, and have no right to know how the premium is calculated.

It is no wonder then that getting government policy implemented such as energy efficiency measures and community heating schemes, is so difficult. The default position is no change.

The insurance arm of the freeholder to our property, was recently quoted saying it was concerned at increasing losses from fire damage, which are now running at the highest level ever experienced.

However, at the same time their managing agent is telling us – their leaseholders – that the insurer/freeholder cannot get involved in fire safety issues within the building. The agent said: “Unfortunately matters pertaining to the actual fabric of the building is something that [the developer] will have to resolve with you, we cannot fix the problems directly”. Actually we weren’t asking them fix to the problems themselves, but simply how we could work with them to make the building they now own, safe to live in. That would, incidentally, also reduce the insurance risk.

There are other fractious relationships. The developer appointed the managing agent and signed a contract requiring six months notice be given to end the contract. Residents and tenants frequently wonder who the managing agent is actually representing. They have many contracts throughout the country with the same developer (a large national housebuilder) so appear keen not to rock the boat and seem unable to get the builder to fix anything.

For example the water meters have leaked and the residents are stuck in an argument between the water company and the developer about who is responsible. There is no question of the housebuilder sorting out the defect and arguing with the water company afterwards; they don’t do customer care. The managing agent doesn’t want to get involved as the water meters are demised to the individual properties. This means that each time a water meter fails the leaseholder has to report the fault themselves, despite damage being caused to communal areas.

That is inconvenient but far worse is that the communal heating system has not been properly commissioned. Getting that resolved is proving very difficult, because so many parties are involved and because while the heating system works, there is no compulsion on anyone to see that it works efficiently and according to design.

The complexity of property law and holdings and the opaque nature of who is entitled to what means that as a country we stick huge hurdles in the way of progress. How do you make landlords carry out energy efficiency improvements, or agree to community energy projects?

In London we are about to embark on large-scale residential tower developments along the River Thames, with centralised heating systems. Who will ensure that these highly efficient systems actually deliver on those low energy promises?

The shocking truth about my housebuilder and health and safety

In fourth of his diaries of a new home purchase, David Frise details how his builder consciously flouted health and safety laws

I mentioned in my blog introducing this series that the builder of my new house – a major listed housebuilder – has shown a total disregard for health and safety. My subsequent blogs detailed the firm’s construction failing and inability to provide me – the customer – with basic information about its performance and functionality.

But it’s time to come back to this disregard of health and safety. This came as a genuine shock. I have worked in construction for over 20 years and, genuinely, had not experienced this hugely disappointing lack of care.

Examples? Well, let’s start with the windows.

The flats have tilt and turn full height windows. So, to stop people falling out glazed guards are fitted, which are half the height of the window and very heavy.

One has already fallen off – fortunately from a ground floor flat. A second was found to be loose. There are four floors in the block, so you can imagine the result if someone leans against a guard on the upper floors and it gives way. Danger from above and below.

You would think this would trigger an immediate safety check of the 100 or so other guards. Well you would be wrong. There is apparently no need to check as these two particular window guards were installed by a ‘rogue contractor’. That makes me feel so much better.

I’ve seen the ‘Building Log Book’ and it tells me they have inadequate records of the build, so how can they be so sure about this particular aspect? As I told one of the directors: “You surely don’t earn enough money to take this level of personal risk?”

It seems incredibly cavalier that the directors remain oblivious of their responsibilities - or simply choose to ignore them. Actually, as I have pointed out the former to them, it has to be the latter.

We have mice on the first floor. They must have come in through holes in the structure where the services penetrate. Begs the question how did the housebuilder pressure test the building?

What else? The window installation company changed a window on the fourth floor using a cherry picker. The problem was that they waited until it was dark. It was also sited in a public car park and crossed a school footpath, which remained open so school children could walk under the platform.

The residents on the floors below were not warned, so they could also walk under the platform as the window was hoisted into position.

I reported this incident to the housebuilder with photographs. The result: Nothing. In fact they didn’t even acknowledge my complaint, even after numerous chasing letters.

Ironically, when I asked to go onto the flat roof to see the solar thermal installation I was advised I would need to complete a £600 “safety course” first.

Anything else? Yes, actually. They took a year to produce a Legionella risk assessment and even then it was just the bare minimum as it only covered the public areas. Residents have received no advice about the risks or any precautions they should take.

We had a number of soil and vent pipe leaks into the undercroft basement car park. I cycled through a bad one (not recommended - contact with human faeces can damage your health). The plumber tried to blag my wife that the water was only shower waste. He claimed the toilets used a different system.

My wife’s response: “Don’t p*** on me and tell me it’s raining”. She is a plumber’s wife after all. The builders have so little regard for the residents that they even refused to pay for water sampling to prove their claim that some of the leaks were rainwater not toilet water.

We have mice on the first floor. Intelligent creatures mice, but they didn’t take the lift and didn’t open the fire doors and climb the stairs to appear magically behind kitchen units. They must have come in through holes in the structure where the services penetrate. Begs the question how did the housebuilder pressure test the building?

The builder thinks the residents are “over-reacting” and said “if you can locate the holes we will fill them”. My concern is that where the mice can go smoke can follow. Is our fire safety compromised? The fire at Lakanal House, where six people lost their lives in 2009, resulted from smoke passing between floors. We currently have two fire doors that do not shut fully. This was reported four weeks ago as a defect, but still has not been repaired despite numerous follow up reports from residents.

Do these companies never learn anything?

Over a third of the water meters have leaked causing water damage down the stairwells, which led to two fire alarm panels having to be changed. We thought this might prompt a product recall and replacement meters. Of course, we were wrong… again.

So despite bland published statements like “in managing health and safety we take a pro-active approach” and “the safety of you and your family is extremely important to us” the evidence would suggest that this approach either ends at handover or there is a cultural issue at this very large national housebuilder. How else could one explain such a blatant disregard of the safety of those to whom they owe a duty of care?

Official secrets: Why are housebuilders keeping us in the dark?

David Frise battles to find out if his new home from a listed builder is performing as it should

I started my career in the Royal Navy, in fact in nuclear submarines. I have signed the Official Secrets Act and clearly see the need to keep secret the design of a nuclear power plant on a submarine. I fail to see, however, why the schematic of a centralised gas-fired boiler system in a 52 apartment block in North London should be a big secret. But apparently it is.

The latest installment in my diary of my new home purchase concerns openness and consumer information.

Regarding the boiler schematic, the builder has flatly refused to give me a copy. “We have declined to provide a schematic because it is a communal system”. Why not? What harm could be done by providing a resident with information about the installed systems?

I have also been frustrated in my attempts to get a copy of the schematic of the solar thermal installation. I needed this because the building would qualify for the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)at a rate of 8.5p KWhr (at the time it was relevant) and I thought this would be sensible to pursue. Again I was refused, only to find out that the installer had entered an Energy Efficiency awards competition – and I was one of the judges (unlucky for them)! They were claiming quite remarkable performance from the system they installed in my block. It was particularly remarkable because I happened to know it wasn’t working because of a leak on the system.

In fact there is, incredibly, a heat meter already installed, but you won’t be surprised to hear it is in the wrong place and not wired

The installer did, however, offer to send over a schematic to allow the installation of the required heat meters for the RHI. Weeks passed and when chased the promised schematic had mysteriously disappeared and, in fact, they said they only did the maintenance. Really? Not what their competition entry said. They are apparently still able to install the heat meters though. How they will do that, without knowing what size they need to be and where to site them is a mystery. In fact there is, incredibly, a heat meter already installed, but you won’t be surprised to hear it is in the wrong place and not wired.

Other items that have the security status of “For Builders’ Eyes Only” include the basis on which a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 was attained. The developer seems to have the equivalent of a rubber stamp: “Permission Denied”. However, as I am in the know I contacted BRE who administer the Code. BRE have no record of inspections and so pointed me towards DCLG. They again have no records. There is no central registry and, as I did not pay for the inspection, I am not entitled to see how the code level was attained.

Now, as I have two shower valves with a combined flow rate of 43.4 litres per minute, a dishwasher, washing machine and two toilets, I am not really sure how we sneak under the 105 litres per person per day requirement of the code. But as I’m rapidly learning, it’s all on a “need to know” basis, and in order to bill me Thames Water have installed a meter that I am now able to read (I had to buy a key to the cupboard) so I know my water consumption is 180 litres per person per day.

No wonder they want to keep it all a secret.

They don’t know what they’ve built

David Frise with the second in his series of articles charting his experience of buying a new build flat marketed as reaching Code for Sustainable Homes level three

I should have realised “early doors” that the builder of my brand new Code for Sustainable Homes level three flat was not really too concerned about what they had built. They couldn’t tell me if the solar array was solar PV or thermal when asked.

Having taken possession, and checked what we could before the sky darkened over our new home on that first night, we immediately noticed a fault in the design. No light switch for the living room! It was quickly found however … in the hallway.

This quirkiness of design rapidly became a trend; we noticed we couldn’t operate the kitchen extractor fan from within the kitchen. This switch took a bit more finding, as it was located in the airing cupboard, (where else?). An unmarked two speed light switch operates the fan. The manual advises you to leave the fan operating in low speed at all times to ventilate the bathrooms, but if you’re cooking the fan needs to be on a high speed (so you have to walk out the kitchen and make the switch, not very high tech. Invariably we forget to switch it back to low speed after cooking, so wasting energy. I made a note to get that changed; Building Regulations require local switching of fans.

After one night we also abandoned the fan running constantly on low speed, it’s far too noisy to sleep with it on.

We noticed we couldn’t operate the kitchen extractor fan from within the kitchen. This switch took a bit more finding, as it was located in the airing cupboard, (where else?)

I checked the instruction manual for the fan and became more puzzled as the manual was for a MVHR (mechanical ventilation heat recovery) model, which are very efficient and save lots of energy by recovering around 90% of the heat extracted. I could see the extract side but no supply air ducts; the system should balance supply and extract air. I queried this with customer support; “I’ll get back to you on that”. Two weeks later, the reply was, “we’ve issued you the wrong manual in error”. The correct manual was dispatched but took months to arrive.

This got me thinking and having checked the energy performance certificate (EPC) in the flat manual I thought I’d like to see the SAP calculation. If the MVHR was used in that calculation it would produce a much better result than straightforward extract. This is after all a code level three flat so dumb extract seemed wrong.

I waited a long time for the SAP calc, and had to ask for it on numerous occasions. Eventually I got one but it was marked “draft”, so I asked for the correct one. Months passed again but the second one produced was a “checklist”. I’m now getting really suspicious, because one thing I noted on the “checklist” is, that the ventilation system is described as ”balanced” indicating MVHR (straightforward extract being “unbalanced”). I therefore asked again for the correct SAP calc. That was six months ago and to date I’ve received nothing. So I know what I think the answer is.

The builder uses this tactic frequently – giving any request they don’t like the look of “a good stiff ignoring”. The other 51 residents in this block wouldn’t know a MVHR if it hit them over the head. So you will get away with this on 51 of 52 occasions. I thought if you had made a genuine mistake and supplied the wrong manual you would quickly provide the evidence within a correct SAP calculation wouldn’t you? If however you had “value engineered” out the MHVR somewhere between planning approval and build, you have made 52 savings on fans, ductwork, louvres and labour. It all adds up.

I said in the first article that the housebuilder sold me a Volkswagen and delivered a Skoda. The building designed for planning did not translate into the finished article and the builder does not have accurate enough records of the changes. Or perhaps they do, but to produce them would prove what I can only currently surmise. I’m more inclined to believe they don’t know what they’ve built, and worse, don’t much care.

Why housebuilders are trying to sell you a Skoda

David Frise starts a series where he will chart his experience of how one major housebuilder failed to build the home it promised, and then staunchly refused to do anything about it

Housebuilders are a lucky bunch. They have prospered during the recession that has decimated the construction industry. How have they done this? By sitting on their landbanks and squeezing the supply chain.

Having done little to help during the crisis, they have now been rewarded by being given a £3.5bn cash boost from the chancellor, desperate to stimulate economic growth, through the Help to Buy scheme.

The missed opportunity to attach a price for this prize is staggering. We are not even going to insist that they build things properly. The fact that in recent weeks the government has suggested houses should have reasonable space to live in and somewhere to put our bins, suggests an industry not really focused on their customers.

Having done little to help during the crisis, housebuilders have now been rewarded by being given a £3.5bn cash boost

But why should housebuilders care? They have unsurpassed political clout, customers queuing up to buy their products, no new entrants into the market because of big barriers to entry and, it seems to me, nobody checking the quality of build.

The result is numerous complaints about cramped accommodation, poor workmanship and long running defects. I’ve been considering this of late: why is there such a divergence between what they sell and what they actually deliver?

How do I know about this problem? Well, I’ve recently bought a new flat in a brand new, purpose-built apartment block. Not any old flat but a Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 flat, from one of the largest housebuilders in the country, one that is expanding on the back of the chancellor’s largesse and recording record profits.

I have concluded there are two reasons for the performance gap, apart from “because they can”.

Firstly, they sell you a Volkswagen Golf, give you a Skoda and tell you it’s the same. But why don’t we rail against this inequity? Well, basically we don’t know we have been sold a Skoda. How would we know without an in-depth knowledge of Building Regulations? In my case I have tried to get the information but have been subject to a good stiff dose of ignoring, dissembling and misinformation.

One year after moving in I still do not have basic information like a SAP calculation, a schematic of the centralised communal heating system so I can work out how the system works and no information on the solar thermal heating, that in theory should qualify the development for the Renewable Heat Incentive.

So you have to be an expert to spot the scam.

A house is the biggest purchase of our lives so we don’t want to make it look like we’ve been sold a pup

Secondly, house purchases are about location, location, location. This is the biggest purchase of our lives so we don’t want to make it look like we’ve been sold a pup. As long as the building doesn’t fall down, the housebuilder has nothing to fear. We stay pretty quiet.

It isn’t just that the build that doesn’t match the expectation. My housebuilder has in its brochure a section on customer care – Because we care. A photograph of a bank of three operators ready to take your call is displayed. In reality they have a part time, non-specialist in place who has the ability to dump information at the end of each call. The person can’t open an Excel spreadsheet detailing defects, in fact wondered “what that file was” in an email. To be fair almost everything that was forwarded on to the construction manager by the customer care “team” was roundly ignored, particularly if it was requests for information. It truly is customer “care” with no customer support from senior management.

Most disturbing and most surprising to me has been a cavalier approach to health and safety. In the area of commercial construction I’ve been involved in, H&S is taken very seriously, yet regional directors at housebuilders appear to be unaware of the concept of criminal negligence or duty of care.

In the coming weeks, I will be expanding on my battle with the developer, over problems ranging from windows which no-one knows how to clean, to leaking pipes and poorly thought through design to real health and safety issues. And how I’ve had to become a director of the residents’ management company to get information about the property I live in. Overwhelmingly it is a story about the builder’s complete lack of interest in whether or not the building operates to the design.