0 A call for better post-Covid ventilation

• by Administrator
• 14-07-2021

Since man first created the built environment and dwellings in which to live, the space within has become an internal environment, in which the air quality becomes contaminated with a build up of humidity, warmed by varying peaks and troughs of heat, and barriers through which the water vapour cannot move, such as are created within buildings especially in impervious modern materials.     When condensation forms from the water vapour condensing on cold surfaces, organic materials, including organic matter deposited on impervious surfaces, such as dirt, food smears and grease can cause mould spores to germinate.     The mould grows and releases spores into the internal environment.  The spores are inhaled and over time can exacerbate and cause asthma and potentially cause specific fungal diseases such as aspergillosis.     Bacteria grow and multiply on such surfaces. Viruses from animals and humans can enter and circulate within the internal space.    The best method of dealing with this and to mitigate all such hazards is to ventilate the indoor space.    Opening a window creates insufficient consistent ventilation - unless a window on the opposite wall can be opened to create a throughflow.    Opening and leaving windows open creates heat loss and security risks. Mechanical extractors simply remove air leaving the air to be replaced from other parts fed by openings in the building.    The Housing Act 2004 Section 9 and within the separately published operational guidance of the Housing Health & Safety Rating System recommends ventilation by mechanical heat recovery. This simultaneously removes air from within the building whilst drawing in cold fresh external air. The heat in the outgoing air is transferred to warm the incoming air.      The controls can be set at relative humidity (RH) of 50 to remove all air several times a day or per hour as necessary. This dilutes the air within the building whilst simultaneously removing it. Thus the viral load never builds and surfaces become dry as no moisture is created by condensation.     A recent case study involving a nationally known landlord who refused to implement class one mould and dampness hazards as ordered by the County Council in a farmhouse in Northumberland has resulted in an admission of liability in court and a compensation settlement. The landlord was also responsible for paying legal costs and to make good defective and work undertaken within the original Council order and implement requirements identified in the original order.     Landlords should be aware that advising a tenant they are responsible for creating condensation, whilst true to a degree, is legally unacceptable. Landlords have a duty under the Housing Act to comply with the Housing Health & Safety Rating System and to adopt best practice by installing a heat recovery system.    The rise of Covid 19 could also join the landlord's duties & requirements in ensuring properties are adequately ventilated to protect tenants.    It is possibly only a matter of time before tenants who die as a result of their housing conditions and it becomes apparent that the landlord has not installed adequate means of ventilation liability could become an issue. 

0 Testing materials before being used in construction

• by Administrator
• 14-07-2021

The role of testing materials before being used in construction is an important one. The British Board of Agrement has enjoyed a pre eminent role in that respect.    However home owners and builders should become beware that a BBA Certificate is not all it seems.    Had the cladding on Grenfell Tower been tested it would never have been allowed to be used if the specifications and the landlord had insisted on such products being certificated for safety by such a body.    A review of sample BBA Certificates for plastic cavity drain membranes (widely used in existing buildings in creating habitable space in basements) just before Grenfell contained references to fire resistance as being class F.  Perhaps specifiers should have looked class F up as it actually meant it was not tested.     So why would a BBA Certificate have a reference to fire testing and then simply say in a coded reference it was not tested ? Is this not misleading ? A product should be fit for purpose. This principle was established in the Sale of Goods Act in 1894 & reinforced through numerous subsequent enactments.    So in a case where consumers are being sold services using products that are not tested in important aspects & potentially unfit for use, is the UK's pre-eminent testing agency not fulfilling its function ?    Amazingly such fire resistant 'standards' were found after Grenfell to have been removed in this particular Certificate.  ( full details held on file.)   A letter from the BBA to a trade body whose members had been using damp proofing creams for over 15 years admitted the creams had in fact never been tested by the BBA.  Yet these products for which the manufacturers had paid the BBA to provide such certification in order to be able to market them, had collected Certificate fees for many years.   Consumers who were sold damp proofing services by members of the trade association were therefore inadvertently misrepresenting their services to consumer householders who had often paid many thousands of pounds to endure supposedly necessary treatments which were then in fact found to be ineffective i.e. the creams were found in fact not to work !    They only worked when their silicone content was above 60%.  This was only found out AFTER many millions or even billions of pounds worth of disruptive & consequently entirely unnecessary work had been undertaken over 15 years.     The BBA Certificates are promoted as the 'Gold Standard' and require testing of products before they are awarded.   Yet very clear evidence we have on file from the BBA and the trade association demonstrates these Certificates were issued for products that had never worked.      One could ask how and why this national scandal was never revealed by angry consumers with damp walls some years after treatment ?    The evidence contained within a Which ? article entitled Unnecessary Treatments published in December 2011 perhaps explains why.   Which ? set up two subject houses with dampness caused by a burst pipe in one, and high ground in another. And 11 companies were invited to inspect the properties for advice.  Across 22 surveys, not one company identified either problem and all recommended work costing thousands of pounds.    Therefore if unnecessary treatments have been undertaken by products that do not work, is it a surprise that reports of failures of products that could never work are not commonplace ?    The human misery & financial loss this causes is endemic.    Unfortunate vendors selling houses become targeted by salesmen masquerading as surveyors selling unnecessary treatments (that the mortgagees require to be remedied) then have to reduce their prices. Many properties are also of historic fabric whose integrity is ruined by such unnecessary works.   The Society of Surveyors and Construction promotes holistic surveys and supports its members in offering such surveys. The Society has produced a Building Condition Audit  that guides surveyors through a complete inspection of any property. The Audit is completed digitally while surveying the property.  Pre-populated templates and sections are summarised with binary selection supported by individual narrative content drawings and images.    Observations are recorded in trails of evidence from which conclusions are deduced leading to recommendations to repair damage or improve buildings where poor design is evident.     The case of failing to observe an important defect in Merrett and Babb rightly haunts many a surveyor, who are the authors of their own reports upon whom personal liability rests for many years afterwards.    Had the BCA been used at Grenfell Tower the fire may never have happened, as any key element or product used in a building would be noted, and its efficacy commented upon or a recommendation made to consult the product's certification & where possible the qualities and scope of that certification.   Any building audited by the BCA should identify the defects in the Which ? survey properties.   The Society offers an award in the use of the BCA to ensure members are trained in its use. Society CPD requirements & monitoring of reports made by the BCA are regularly reviewed & monitored.  

0 What effect on health do buildings have?

• by Administrator
• 14-07-2021

Relative humidity within a building is the measure of the volume of water vapour suspended within the volume of air within the property. The vapour moves around within the air currents and contact with cold surfaces causes the water vapour to condense and create water droplets. Mould spores within the air land on the wet surface and any organic matter of smears such as dirt or food smears can become a source of food causing the spores to germinate and grow into grey patches or black spots. Mould spores become more prolific as a result and are breathed into potentially causing or exacerbating asthma. 

0 Merrett versus Babb: a Landmark Case

• by Administrator
• 13-07-2021

In the case of Merrett and Babb, extending liability for negligence in surveys, the unfortunate surveyor, Mr Babb was held liable for a defect he missed. Ms Merrett bought the house surveyed by Mr Babb where an extension had been built but not keyed into the host structure resulting it becoming unstable. Mr Babb’s employer at he time of the survey had ceased trading with a consequent cessation of the insurance cover for professional indemnity and liability then fell some 12 years after the survey onto Mr Babb. Liability for any report falls to the author of that report. Thus Mr Babb was responsible for the remedial costs as it was held he was negligent in failing to observe the defect. More importantly the costs far exceeded the value of the remedial works.