Construction Products Regulations Reg 305/2011 Declaration of Performance Compliance in Damp Proofing Creams

william kidd made this Freedom of Information request to Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Waiting for an internal review by Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England of their handling of this request.

Dear Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England,

In October 2013 British Board of Agrement (BBA) issued a statement to Property Care Association (PCA) whose members comprise of damp proofing contractors supported by TrustMark and manufacturers of damp proofing products.

The statement revealed that BBA had concerns that damp proofing creams which were the main products in use in remedial damp proofing had extremely variable performance. BBA stated that low strength creams with active ingredient content of around 10-20 per cent may not work except in certain circumstances.

It implied high strength creams with content of 60 per cent did work in all situations. Copy of statement available.

BBA suggested a new two tier test to classify the products it had allegedly tested in order to meet with what appears to be mandatory compliance from October 2013 with Reg 305/2011.

BBA Certificates share several quite different types of material and product within the same Certificate Number. BBA admitted in April that the Moat Test 39 originated in 1988, used for testing products and declaring they were fit for purpose, was developed long before damp proofing creams were even thought of.

Therefore the products covered by the same Agrement Board Cert Numbers group together a wide range of performance data that could confuse and mislead consumers.

Therefore contractors installing products on behalf of consumers researching which type of product to use may believe that a BBA Agrement Certificate implies the products are all actually tested and fit for purpose. However the test by BBA's own admission cannot apply to some of the products - yet the products are being actively installed supported by TrustMark into the homes of consumers.

PCA responded by suggesting that neither contractors nor consumers must be advised of this information in case it adversely affected the manufacturing sector of the industry.
Copy of letter available.

Can BRAC please advise what compliance information you hold on the remedial damp proofing creams used in existing buildings to prevent rising rising damp and evidence that compliance with regulation 305/2011 has been provided by the manufacturer holding BBA Agrement Cert number 05/4251 which Certificate covers all products produced by Sovereign Chemical Industries.

Please can BRAC advise on compliance details held on Wykamol products BBA certificate number 02/3961 which also covers several disparate products.

Please provide copies of compliance information with Declaration of Performance and Fit for Purpose data and information.

Yours faithfully,

William Kidd

FoI Requests, Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England

FOI REF NO: F0008064

Thank you for your email. We are currently processing your request. Please quote the reference number above in any further correspondence regarding this request.
Freedom of Information Team
Department for Communities and Local Government

show quoted sections

Ahad Sayed, Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Kidd

Please find attached a reply to your email of 1 August about your request
for information about compliance information the Department holds on the
remedial damp proofing creams. A signed hard copy of the letter will be
sent in the post to you shortly.

 

Regards

 

[1]DCLG-logo-for-web2

Ahad Sayed

* North-West zone, 3^rd floor | Fry Building | 2 Marsham Street | London |
SW1P 4DF

@     [2][email address]

:  [3]DCLG

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

Ahad Sayed, Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Kidd

Please find attached a reply to your email of 1 August about your request
for information about compliance information the Department holds on the
remedial damp proofing creams. A signed hard copy of the letter will be
sent in the post to you shortly.

 

Regards

 

[1]DCLG-logo-for-web2

Ahad Sayed

* North-West zone, 3^rd floor | Fry Building | 2 Marsham Street | London |
SW1P 4DF

@     [2][email address]

:  [3]DCLG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

Dear Ahad Sayed,

Thank you for your response of 1st. September.

I'm disappointed to find that there is no information on what is an extremely important situation regarding consumer protection and upholding of building regulations in the UK which we are all dependent upon to ensure fit for purpose works and materials for the safety and value of our homes and work places.

The supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982 requires compliance with fit for purpose aims.

In an extention of this I quote below from Building Regulations 2000 Part 1 which require the following -

'Materials and workmanship
7. Building work shall be carried out—
(a) with adequate and proper materials which—
(i) are appropriate for the circumstances in which they are used,
(ii) are adequately mixed or prepared, and
(iii) are applied, used or fixed so as adequately to perform the functions for which they
are designed; and
(b) in a workmanlike manner. '

As discussed by telephone since my request was made and my E mail response to your department regarding Reg.305 CPR and Declaration of Performance this is only applicable for inter European marketing under CE requirements.

However as seen from the Building Regulations Part One, irrespective of Reg 305 CPR, adequate performance is mandatory.

I quote below from your reply -

'We do not hold records of Declarations of Performance (or associated information) that manufacturers draw up under the EU Construction Products Regulation 305/2011. This is not necessary as the Regulation sets requirements for manufacturers to retain record copies. However, damp proof creams are not covered by a European Harmonised
Standard and therefore Declaration of Performance certificates do not exist for such product'

However despite your answer quoted above, as can be seen from the Building regulations, extract Part 1 Building Regulations in the UK, do require equivalent to declaration of performance, which in turn is similar to fit for purpose compliance i.e.' adequate performance'.

I note in Building Regulations requirements that local authorities in the UK have the power to test samples of materials in use of any materials where building regulations may be mandatory and where perhaps no such adequate data is held.

That such instances of where damp proofing creams may be covered by Building Regulations by way of example may include conversion of existing buildings to residential use or bringing back derelict buildings into use here building regulations would apply to such materials as damp proofing creams.

Therefore apart from contractual matters requiring common law and statutory internal UK consumer compliance requirements, which are all mandatory, I understand that the manufacturers of products used seek to rely on British Board of Agrement (BBA) for testing of such products and that is indeed the alleged purpose of BBA.

In support of this general notion BBA in fact state on their web site that they offer a 'gold standard' in 'fit for for purpose' testing.

Therefore it should be sufficient in this situation to rely on a freely available document from BBA in downloadable web site statements where that information is available.

However as I noted in my original request how can this be possible when the Agrement Board Certificate number is generic and by categorisation into Products Sheets is designed to and does cover such disparate products i.e. fluids to creams - that the BBA pointedly admit on their web site that damp proofing creams were not even thought of at the time of the Moat 39 test in use only for fluids not creams. The same number certificate as is used for Wykamol creams is also used for fluids. That the same certificate can be used to cover two products using 2 different materials using only numbered Product Sheets is inadequate in meeting compliance aims required for Building Regulations that the certificate declares it does comply with and resists passage of moisture in BSI 6576 . BSI 6576 is not a test it is a code of practice or guide to a procedure. It does not validate the ingredients required to ensure technical performance of a product.

It is believed that manufacturers do not have test data and are thus relying on BBA. BBA state in their Certificates that manufacturers must provide records supporting their product in particular any failures of the product in use.
The BBA Certificate for Wykamol (Product Sheet 7) 02/3961 signed 19.8.13 by 'Claire' Chief Executive of BBA and Simon Wroe head of Approvals provides -

' CERTIFICATION INCLUDES:
• factors relating to compliance with Building
Regulations where applicable
• factors relating to additional non-regulatory
information where applicable
• independently verified technical specification
• assessment criteria and technical investigations
• design considerations
• installation guidance
• regular surveillance of production
• formal three-yearly review.

16 Investigations
16.1 The manufacturing process was evaluated, and the raw material specifications, formulation and quality control
procedures were established.
16.2 Existing data on the effectiveness of silicone-based products as a chemical dpc were evaluated.'

BBA have openly admitted their test has been ineffective and inappropriate, and furthermore in a move that has now distanced itself even further from confirming fit for purpose, their Certificates when renewed now remove all test references. Thus their Certificate content noted above cannot be correct yet this Certificate was issued in August 2013 and remains valid.

In view of this how can Building Regulations be complied with and consumers safeguarded by local authorities who require evidence that the products are going to work ?

Please can BRAC provide information held on procedures adopted to check on compliance with Building Regulations regarding this matter.

BBA have already noted in a statement about low strength cream products that they do not work and the trade body Property Care Association responded saying this information must be kept from consumers and contractors who are members of the consumer protection Trustmark scheme.

Therefore can BRAC provide information on procedures used to ensure compliance statements of fit for purpose that demonstrate this requirement and provide information on communications between local authorities and BRAC regarding any tests local authorities may have provided to BRAC in support of the requirement under building regulations concerning mandatory fit for purpose evidence.

Please advise what information BRAC has on procedures that come into play when fit for purpose requirements are not met or are unlikely to be met.

Please can BRAC provide information it has on how and why BBA is relied upon to provide this information, and any review procedures that could apply to cover situations where BBA may no longer provide that assurance, and what evidence has BRAC that products being used have thus been clearly demonstrated to be fit for purpose.

This is of particular importance if BBA admit they have no test.

In respect of this can BRAC provide information on procedures to be adopted if and when it becomes apparent that materials commonly in use over a number of years have, or may not have met, performance requirements.This is especially important to safeguard against failure of work.

What data does BRAC have on effectiveness of damp proofing creams and incidents of complaint local authorities may have and have these been reported to BRAC and what procedures do BRAC have in place to ensure Building Regulations are being applied and coordinated nationally.

This information is important and necessary In a matter of public interest and protection which is the very purpose of building regulations.

Yours sincerely,

william kidd

Dear Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England's handling of my FOI request 'Construction Products Regulations Reg 305/2011 Declaration of Performance Compliance in Damp Proofing Creams'.

No response has been received to this request. The response is long overdue. The failure to respond means none compliance with statutorily mandatory fit for purpose building regulations cannot be checked.

This adversely affects consumers - whose homes are being injected with potentially useless damp proofing creams, the existence of which is becoming well known within the industry.

Government contracted consumer agency Trustmark have been advised of this matter but do not prevent none compliance with the regulatory requirements thus it is important to provide information requested.

In my opinion and supported by irrefutable written evidence, failure of regulatory processes such as 'fit for purpose' compliance with building regulations, and potentially fraudulent concealment of information concerning the ineffective materials, consumers are consequently spending many thousands of pounds per home for a service which could totally fail and which across the UK represents some potential £200 Million of wasted money because building regulations are not being applied as they should.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

william kidd

FoI Requests, Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England

3 Attachments

  • Attachment

    FOI F0008064 request Construction Products Regulations Reg 305 2011 Declaration.html

    6K Download

  • Attachment

    image003.jpg

    2K Download

  • Attachment

    140901 FOI request F0008064 William Kidd Final Reply.pdf

    26K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Kidd

Thank you for your email of 17th October 2014 in which you seek an internal review of the reasons you have not yet received a response to your request to the Department for Communities and Local Government for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Department takes very seriously it’s obligations to respond to requests for information within 20 working days, and upon investigation I can confirm that a response was sent to you within this timescale on 1st September 2014. I'm attaching a copy of this response for your information.

Yours sincerely

Hilarie White

Knowledge and Information Access Team
Department for Communities and Local Government
2nd Floor NW
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DF

show quoted sections

Dear FoI Requests,

Thank you for your reply.

However you have not answered the further details contained in my response of Sept 3rd or indeed the content of my complaint of 17th October.

Yours sincerely,

william kidd

FoI Requests, Building Regulations Advisory Committee for England

Dear Mr Kidd

Thank you for your email. The business area concerned are aiming to respond to you within the next few days.

Kind regards
Hilarie White

Knowledge and Information Access Team
Department for Communities and Local Government
2nd Floor NW
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DF

show quoted sections