Reflective Insulation Materials

[David OLIVIER]

I'm getting increasingly annoyed that these thin-film reflective insulation products continue to be peddled in the UK and mis-sold (in the same sense as endowment mortgages were) to consumers.

There've now been real-life tests paid for by the Canadian govt. which prove that the the manufacturers' claims are wanting - to put it mildly. Earlier UK tests - albeit paid for by the manufacturer Celotex, since our govt. has done precisely nothing to rectify the situation - showed exactly the same results.

How do I sum it all up? Roughly as follows:
 
1. the UK claims made for reflective insulation are false. One product by Actis which is claimed to have an R-value of 5 (measured in metric units, which is as good as 200 mm of mineral fibre batts) is likely to have a true R-value of 1.0 (40 mm mineral fibre!!) ONE-FIFTH AS MUCH.

2. The test carried out in France, designed by Actis and "witnessed" by a UK trade body which is being used to justify the UK claims seems to be highly misleading since it mixed up the twin issues of R-values and air leakage through the building fabric. Physically, they should be treated as entirely separate issues. Was this test intentionally designed to defraud? If not, surely it should now be withdrawn?

3. The UK official "approval certificate" of these materials, given of course in return for money, is very strange. Surely, one would think, govt. bodies' principal duty should be to protect the hapless consumer from being misled or deceived?

What do others think? Should the AECB take any action, perhaps by writing and telling govt. to do its job properly by regulating manufacturers' claims better and outlawing those which are untruthful?

David.

[Chris Herring]

The Celotex funded report was undertaken by the National Physical Laboratory.  A summary can be downloaded from www.celotex.co.uk

Should this topic be in rants or materials?  Guess it is both.

[Tahir]

Should the AECB take any action, perhaps by writing and telling govt. to do its job properly by regulating manufacturers' claims better and outlawing those which are untruthful?

Does the AECB have sufficient resources to track and respond to issues like this? If so then I'd say it should defnitely be communicating with the relevant Govt depts when it sees "mis truths" in advertising materials. As a punter I've no idea which claims to believe...

[ian stokes]

I have today complained to ASA about Actis tri iso super 9 claims. I would encourage others to do the same. We need to find someone prepared to put up the money to take Actis to court. I have a householder who is willing to put her roof up as a test case.

(this message is from John Willoughby)

[Chris Herring]

Don't want to be deeply pessimistic, but am going to be.  I have had quite a lot of experience of dealing with the ASA wrt a particular advertiser over several years, with surprisingly frustrating outcome, so won't hold my breath over this one.  As there is currently BBA upholding the claims made, I think the ASA will simply refer to this and throw this out. 

Keep up the good work though, John (aka Ian).

[David OLIVIER]

I agree with Chris - the ASA's pretty useless. But an official AECB letter to the BBA asking them to immediately rescind or modify the certificate might be worthwhile.

I was approached recently about a cold and draughty 2000 barn conversion in Herefordshire which uses reflective insulation, but it was more a case of incompetent installation so it's unsuitable. The best test case would be where the claimant could sue with AECB's help under the county court small claims procedure - this applies if you're seeking damages of <£5,000.

D.

[Tahir]

The best test case would be where the claimant could sue with AECB's help under the county court small claims procedure - this applies if you're seeking damages of <£5,000.

Sounds like a worthwhile approach.