Clearview National March 2019 - Issue 208 | Page 40

PROUD SPONSOR OF DOORS & WINDOWS
DOORS&WINDOWS
Spot the difference
Contract Compliance vs. Building Regulations
» » IN THIS EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE FOR
Clearview, Alan Burgess - chairman of
Timberweld and the Masterframe Group
– discusses why fenestration needs policing
to ensure that what’s specified is what’s
installed…
Let’s start by saying that while the British
Fenestration Rating Council (BFRC) scheme
is excellent, it is never a precise reflection
of what’s installed. The BFRC team talks a
lot about trust, which stems from rigorous
vetting from independent assessors to ensure
the accuracy of the declared values on BFRC
labels. I have no doubt the calculation of
WER values against the relevant standards
is correctly applied by licence holders. In
my opinion however, the scheme is open to
misuse because nobody polices the installed
products.
FENSA (through various schemes)
exists to ensure compliance with Building
Regulations, but that’s it. These schemes
enable self-certification of Building Regulation
compliance, but they don’t check contract
compliance. In other words, nobody is
checking the detail of what was installed
against what was meant to be installed.
Providing windows are C rated or better,
they are compliant. But who checks if A++
windows were specified in the contract? If it’s
true that new builds often perform 42% less
well than their ‘designed values’ then questions
must be asked.
‘FENSA (through
various schemes)
exists to ensure
compliance with
Building Regulations,
but that’s it. These
schemes enable self-
certification of Building
Regulation compliance,
but they don’t check
contract compliance’
40 » M AR 2019 » CL EARVI E W- UK . C O M
The Glass & Glazing Federation (rightly)
considers its members do what’s right, that
they comply with regulations, that their sales
practises are fair, and their manufacturing
and installation services are sound. So, RISA
inspectors could easily spend a little more time
drilling down to ensure the installed products
are contractually correct.
‘we need products that are
properly designed, installed
corrected and properly
policed so we can be sure
they are fully compliant’
But this increases costs for those already
doing things right, while other companies
escape the added checks and balances along
with the associated inspection costs.
Yet something like this must happen if the
industry is to adopt Dame Judith Hackett’s
recommendation that products be installed
as designed. Grenfell has shown us that many
installed products are either not made as
designed or not installed as designed.
All too often builders and contractors
suggest there is a 30% saving to be made
against the architect’s specified product, saying
‘it’s exactly the same unit, just cheaper’. That
must stop, unless the builder or contractor can
verify that every aspect of the new supplier’s
product is indeed identical in every respect,
apart from price. And, if builders are forced to
accept liability for encouraging their clients to
select an inferior alternative, they will be far
less willing to do so.
Then there are the testing loopholes that
some seek to exploit. Companies often submit
one window (sealing joints and removing steel
reinforcement) for energy testing, and a totally
different window (with steel) for security
testing. Under the rules, if a product with
dummy sashes for example is less than 20%
of a company’s output, they can claim the full
rating as if it was just one opener.
Those companies applying the rules
correctly produce separate certificates for
each product that is constructed differently.
Take sash windows. To obtain an A rated sash
window (which has 35% of the PVC frame)
with a 105mm deep bottom rail, traditional
55mm deep cill and steel reinforcement (for
SBD compliance), Krypton gas must be used,
that adds considerable cost to an already
expensive product. Little wonder then that
some choose to test a sash with slim profiles,
remove the steel and use a skinny cill to
obtain the A or A+ rating. They can then say
that all their sash windows are covered by the
certificate, because less than 20% of what
they sell will have a deep bottom rail, steel
reinforcement or larger cills.
Of more concern is the emergence of
mechanical joints. Since the 1970’s PVC-U
has been mitre-welded on the corners,
producing a sealed corner with no possibility
of water or air ingress. The popularity of
timber-look butt joints has encouraged the
use of mechanical joints, some of which are
fully open ended, allowing air and water to
penetrate. Yet the companies can claim an
identical rating to those with welded, sealed
construction.
In short, we need products that are properly
designed, installed corrected and properly
policed so we can be sure they are fully
compliant. Rule bending in fenestration would
be considerably reduced if auditors checked
the BFRC ratings of installed windows. It’s
time to encourage better products and better
practice, and reward those who do it right.