What The ‘L’ – A Quizzical Critique For the Double Glazing Experts

Author: Conservatory Outlet Team  |  Leave a Comment >>

After what seems like an eternity we now know the compliance criteria for windows and doors from October thanks to the publication of the 2010 approved document part L.

What does this tell us?

• Firstly it would appear that the WER scheme is written in to a C rating, while not labelled the BFRC scheme, in essence that is what it is, and secondly that a draconian 1.6 U-value can be used as an alternative.
• This now means that all the self-certification bodies can produce their own WER schemes, so the next round of self publicizing scammery sets in motion.  With the consumer already being conned by the poor science behind the BFRC scheme, are they next to be subjected to the marketing of schemes, to ensure that they will choose a contractor using the ‘best’ scheme.
• The fact that the Approved Documents will no longer specify ‘BFRC’ in the scheme will undoubtedly be a blow to some, and it may well be worth examining whether the BFRC  certificates will actually comply, is the BFRC  accredited as a self certification body in schedule 2A of the building regs? Maybe FENSA could tag them in for a modest fee!
• Having exposed some alarming re-writing of formulas, seen some ridiculous smoke screens of ‘science’ reports, and had a complete lack of response from Giles Wilson with regard the solar data source, I now find that the circus moves on. Can the industry now wash it’s hands of the whole sorry saga? Surely the government must know what it is doing by ‘taking ownership’ of the formula and publishing it in the approved documents?
• Don’t kid yourselves on this one, the CLG have done no scrutiny of the formula, they have absolutely relied on the evidence of one body…the BFRC. A little ironic really as they (BFRC)  will not get the benefit of  being written in to the regs as they were in 2006,
• what with Certass sat in the wings, smiling, quietly making notes, whispering ‘monopoly’ to the Part L consultation and being given a WER on a plate.  Not that I feel sorry for the BFRC you understand, it’s just that a number of people recently seem to have had issues with the WER scheme, but it mainly seems to boil down to the fact that it is spoiling the journey of our money to their pockets. The apparent defficiency of a scientific basis to the scheme is far outweighed by it’s potential to provide a cut.
• So, here we have a solar flux figure of 196.7 (that should be in the region of  65-80) completely skewing the natural order of things, we should be entitled to know why and how this number has been dreamt up.
• If you were to put this more realistic number (70 Kwhrs) into the formula you will strangely find that the order of merit runs in U-value order…that seems a bit radical you say, maybe, but it’s the truth!
• The odd thing is, the document we are measuring our compliance to is…wait for it…Conservation of Fuel and Power.
• In my dictionary conservation is all about keeping and not losing , conserving. You do that by reducing your losses ie lower U-values . You do not conserve power by exaggerating solar gain, and besides, the single glazed windows being replaced provide more solar gain than the best low iron, low E double glazing units ever will!
• I honestly believe that the original concept of the WER scheme was hijacked and manipulated for the purposes of commercial interest and that today we are seeing it come to fruition. We will very soon have any number of window combinations with U-values of 1.7-1.8 which will comply because they can attain a C rating, would they have complied if the WER scheme had not been lobbied into the regs? I think not.
• I guess my ranting with the industry is coming close to an end as the WER scheme is no longer owned by the industry, maybe I should now aim at the CLG, but for what purpose, if a 1.6 U-value is what they want then abolishing the WER scheme (as if!! )  would close half the industry overnight. However, it absolutely galls me to think that for the last 7 years the industry and the CLG have been effectively conned into submission and it will merrily carry on.
• Before we all rush off to buy our certificates, one thing I have noticed, there is no ‘amnesty’ for leaded lights, georgian bars and obscure glass etc. If the WER you choose tells you it is too complicated to rate these products, they are lying, using a standard layout on the sample sized window, it is easy to calculate the extra effective frame factor, just as it is easy to swap ‘g’ values for each of the different patterned glasses you choose, but what you might find however, is that when they are simulated they don’t quite get a C rating . This might mean that by the letter of the approved document, you may need to comply to the U-value specification instead!

Want to know about WERs, Doument L and Building Regs – visit the leading Double Glazing & Conservatories online Forum – Glasstalk. Click www.glasstalk.co.uk now!