Spray foam insulation removal - consumer rights query

Quilvein

I will follow this thread. Just had exactly the same approach and verdict. Inspector pointed out that everyone he has visited recently was a pensioner which shouted scam to me. He said this type of system was now illegal due to building regulations. If it was illegal then why are Home Logic still able to offer the service. The system itself is based on an open, not closed, cell foam and is only applied if sarking felt is present. The thing is it actually works, for us anyway. Our property is treated steel framed and since having this done is warmer in winter and much cooler in summer.
To be honest this guy has worried my wife sick (the original intention??) but not really myself although I am interested in what happens here. Allegedly it can devalue the property, prevent a mortgage or cause stupidly high home insurance rates yet no one seems to be able to show an actual structural failure. 
A deep dark mess to me.

Cheatedhero37

ThisIsWeird said:

Cheatedhero37 said:

The man said the installation firm Lapolla had been found to have cut corners and this was apparent in my friend’s house with no membrane between the foam and the rafters, roof, etc. 

I can confirm that there is no membrane – the foam (now dried) can be seen in the loft and where it ‘seeped’ into small gaps in the upstairs ceilings.

Having checked the issue out on the internet I am convinced that the foam needs to be removed.

Hi. Could you explain the bits in bold, please?

The 'membrane' - are you referring to the original roofing 'felt' that would/should have been present, or is this an additional membrane that foam-sprayers should use? If 'original', do you know why this felt was not present - had it crumbled away?

Are where did the foam seep into gaps in the ceiling?

Has this spraying been carried out in a normal loft space? Ie, a ventilated area primarily used for storage or for water tanks? And how close to the loft floor at the narrow eaves does the foam go?

Hi, no not the original existing felt (or whatever was there before), it was explained to my friend that a membrane should have been put over the loft space/rafters/etc which is designed to protect those existing parts from the foam which, apparently, can damage those parts over time. The 'surveyor' said that in this case everythingwas ok as it had only been there since 2019.
I will have an other look when I visit her but, from memory, there are small sections (a few cm) visible in upstairs rooms where the ceiling meets the vertical walls. Not many (3 maybe 4 or 5) occurences. It is an old house by the way. But I still don't think it's right that it can be seen.
Yes it's in normal loft space, storage areas and a water tank in one part. I honestly can't remember how close to the loft floor though.
 

Cheatedhero37

Quilvein said:

I will follow this thread. Just had exactly the same approach and verdict. Inspector pointed out that everyone he has visited recently was a pensioner which shouted scam to me. He said this type of system was now illegal due to building regulations. If it was illegal then why are Home Logic still able to offer the service. The system itself is based on an open, not closed, cell foam and is only applied if sarking felt is present. The thing is it actually works, for us anyway. Our property is treated steel framed and since having this done is warmer in winter and much cooler in summer.
To be honest this guy has worried my wife sick (the original intention??) but not really myself although I am interested in what happens here. Allegedly it can devalue the property, prevent a mortgage or cause stupidly high home insurance rates yet no one seems to be able to show an actual structural failure. 
A deep dark mess to me.

So it's not just my friend (who is also a pensioner) then. Good (although not good) to know. Along with all the good advice posted here so far I was also wondering if somewhere there is a lobbying group or something like that. Strength in numbers and all that.
 

FreeBear

Quilvein said:

I will follow this thread. Just had exactly the same approach and verdict. Inspector pointed out that everyone he has visited recently was a pensioner which shouted scam to me. He said this type of system was now illegal due to building regulations. If it was illegal then why are Home Logic still able to offer the service. The system itself is based on an open, not closed, cell foam and is only applied if sarking felt is present.

Spray foam is not, and never has been, "illegal". Installed correctly and used in the right place, it will comply with Building Regulations. However, spraying on to the underside of a pitched roof is wrong form many reasons, and it makes no difference as to whether it is open or closed cell.

This "inspector" of yours sounds to be full of proverbial as was the numpty doing a "free" thermographic survey on my property recently - It was a sales pitch for spray foam insulation..... The minute he said he could feel the top of my cavity was open, I knew he was an idiot (have solid brick walls on the upper half).

Cheatedhero37

With reference to my first opening post explaining the issue, I still have yet to find details/evidence of the alleged government grant/subsidy/whatever-it's-called for (specifically) removal of spray foam, that was mentioned to my friend by the 'inspector', which had to be acted on before the end of next week. I would like to know if anyone else has found it?
If not then I will consider that as an untruth. And, with time now on my side, I can start penning a complaint letter to Home Logic to see what they say. And of course, if the response is unsatisfactory, I can then go to the ombudsman.
All of the above is assuming it wasn't a bogus caller. Incidentally, my friend did use 1471 and called the number back, but the automated message was that all lines were busy. Which, given the press over this subject, could well be true.

FreeBear

Cheatedhero37 said:

With reference to my first opening post explaining the issue, I still have yet to find details/evidence of the alleged government grant/subsidy/whatever-it's-called for (specifically) removal of spray foam, that was mentioned to my friend by the 'inspector', which had to be acted on before the end of next week. I would like to know if anyone else has found it?
If not then I will consider that as an untruth.

I doubt there is any government subsidy to remove spray foam insulation. I have heard from these charlatans that:

• Government report has deemed fibreglass insulation to be unfit for purpose.
• Fibreglass & rock wool insulation only has a life span of 2.5-5 years.
• The Asthma Association says that fibreglass/rockwool insulation is a health risk.
• (and so on).

Suffice to say, they can never produce these mythical reports or any evidence to support their claims.

warwick2001

It might be worth reading the link below:

Aquashield Reclaim — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Although a very different product, there are posts that detail how to go about the complaints procedure when finance companies are involved.

Good luck

JohnB47

Curious. I keep seeing little speeded up videos popping up when I browse, showing a guy spraying a loft.

It's clear that there's no additional  'membrane' fitted over tiles rafters etc. it's just sprayed on to what's already there between the rafters, which means batons and original membrane.

Cheatedhero37

JohnB47 said:

Curious. I keep seeing little speeded up videos popping up when I browse, showing a guy spraying a loft.

It's clear that there's no additional  'membrane' fitted over tiles rafters etc. it's just sprayed on to what's already there between the rafters, which means batons and original membrane.

Oh that IS interesting. I was taking it for read that a membrane is definitely needed, but now I come to think of it that info has come from the same seemingly unreliable sources as the other ‘facts’ I am doubtful about- more fool me! Do you have links to any of these videos or know how official they are?

I have been unable to give this my full attention over the last few days but intend to carry on my digging asap, including contacting Hone Logic. 

Many thanks again all, and please add any more thoughts/info/advice/experiences if you can 👍

ThisIsWeird

Cheatedhero37 said:

Hi, no not the original existing felt (or whatever was there before), it was explained to my friend that a membrane should have been put over the loft space/rafters/etc which is designed to protect those existing parts from the foam which, apparently, can damage those parts over time. The 'surveyor' said that in this case everythingwas ok as it had only been there since 2019.
I will have an other look when I visit her but, from memory, there are small sections (a few cm) visible in upstairs rooms where the ceiling meets the vertical walls. Not many (3 maybe 4 or 5) occurences. It is an old house by the way. But I still don't think it's right that it can be seen.
Yes it's in normal loft space, storage areas and a water tank in one part. I honestly can't remember how close to the loft floor though.

Thank you.
I wasn't aware that a secondary membrane should be, or is normally, fitted, unless perhaps it's when the original roof 'felt' is damaged or missing? But then I just don't know what the full foaming process involves.
Mind you, I can see a secondary membrane being useful in perhaps allowing the foam to be easily removed if required, as I presume it would prevent the foam from adhering to the roof structure, so the set foam could, in theory, be pulled off in slabs with little effort? So perhaps a secondary membrane would actually be a good thing and save a lot of grief?!

On a general point, what are the actual issues and concerns with spray foam insulation? What I currently understand about it is;

1) if it is applied to the underside of a roof in a normal ventilated loft space - which is how it's usually demonstrated in the advert videos - then it'll serve no purpose at all as 'house' insulation. So, if it's advertised or sold as 'house insulation', or 'make your house warmer', or 'cut energy bills', or anything like that, it has surely been mis-sold on that claim alone? Could that be an angle on which to pursue a claim?
2) by coating the roof rafters, it prevents the timbers from 'breathing' and drying out if they need to. This is probably not an issue unless these timbers first become damp, and the two main ways that this could happen would be from a leak coming through the outer roof covering, or condensation forming within the loft space.
So, if a roof does fail and allow water through, this could definitely lead to more significant issues since the leak might be hidden by the foam - so left unnoticed - and it could prevent the affected timbers from drying out. The rafters could then rot away without anyone being aware. Is that the single biggest concern to do with this product?
As for condensation, I'd have thought that the foam-protected rafter sides would be much less likely to have cond forming on them due to the foam, so that shouldn't be an issue? I don't know.

3) if it is applied incorrectly in another manner - and I'm still not sure if Ch37's example has been with their reference to foam seeping through the ceiling - then it could reduce the necessary ventilation within the loft space. Just as with normal loft insulation laid on the loft floor, the foam shouldn't seal the eaves of the loft space, which is where most of the ventilation comes from. If they do cover the eaves, expect lots of condensation up there.