Cavity wall insulation. Am I about to get "scammed"?

[KenGMac]

Below is of interest??

it appears to depend on income, and if the home owner is in receipt of Tax Credits + an income less than £ 16,190

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-cavity-loft-insulation/

Ken

 

[endecotp]

endecotp , what part of my description is surprising?

The surprising part is that you say “the government” have paid for your insulation.

Possibilities are:

1. You’re right, the government really have paid via some scheme I don’t know about or that I have misunderstood.
2. You’re the victim of a scam of some sort but haven’t realised yet.
3. It’s not the central government, but your local authority, who have paid.
4. It’s your energy compny who have paid (the “Energy Company Obligation”).
5. You’re making it all up

I relly don’t know what to think. It would be great if you could name the scheme that has funded your work. Did you read the BBC News story I linked to?

Do you mean I am paying for this sort of thing through my electricity bill similar to the way I am subsidising people who have covered their roofs with solar panels ?

No, I’m suggesting that, if it’s a Green Deal scheme, there is a loan repayment explicitly included in your energy bill.


Edit: I also find it a bit surprising that a house built in ~1998 didn’t already have wall insulation.

Edit: https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/building-regulations-changed-time/
“In 1985 the required u-value dropped to 0.6 for walls, hence many properties began to be insulated (this is about the time we begin to see cavity wall insulation installed as standard). ... In 1990 the u-value for walls dropped down to 0.45 ... In 2002, the u-value for walls was reduced to 0.35”

 

[KenGMac]

This form an [English] government web site

https://www.government-grants.co.uk/free-insulation

• You are here:
  
• Government Grants
  
  
  
• Free Insulation - Free cavity wall and loft insulation

Free Insulation
You are likely to be eligible for 100% funding for insulation grants if you or anybody in your home are in receipt of one or more of the following benefits:

• Armed forces independence payment
• Attendance allowance
• Carer’s allowance
• Child Tax Credit
• Disability living allowance
• Income support
• Income-based jobseeker’s allowance (JSA)
• Income-related employment and support allowance (ESA)
• Industrial injuries disablement allowance
• Industrial injuries disablement benefit
• Pension Credit Guarantee Credit Element
• Personal independence allowance
• Personal independence payment
• Severe disablement allowance
• Universal Credit
• War pensions mobility supplement
• Working tax credit
• Child benefit dependant on income & dependants

 

[Leofric]

endecopt - please don't accuse me of making things up. I am an architectural technician who worked for a housebuilding firm for years as well as architects on the design and construction of houses as well as other buildings. I prepared the working drawings and construction specifications for building regulations approval for years. I know about 'U' values and ,while I agree U values changed over the years, at the time my house was built in 1997 ,would you believe it was possible to pass on SAP ratings with a maximum U value for external walls of 0.6 W/m2 K ,even though it had been lower in previous years. My house was built by Persimmon who used a 110mm thick Thermalite Turbo block inner leaf which complied with Part L without cavity insulation.
Please feel free to contact J & J Crump & Son Ltd,1a Nethermoor Lane , Killamarsh , Sheffield,S21 1BZ, tel 0114 2471098 who installed the insulation on 19/05/2018 and have provided a 25 year CIGA warranty. I thought they said it was a government incentive to get people to improve their house insulation but I am not sure exactly who they claimed the cost from ,the energy supplier was eon, J & J Crump did all the paperwork at no cost to me.
ps I haven't read the BBC story yet but please let me know how you think I might have been conned, I better tell my neighbour as well because they will want to know.

 

[Leofric]

endecopt , you missed out the 1995 edition of Part L ! Please see Planning Portal - Part L Previous Editions - 1995 Edition - Dwellings - under Limiting U values you will see the following :-
When using the calculation procedures in the Target U values and Energy Rating Methods it may be possible to achieve satisfactory solutions where_ _ _
However, U values should be no worse than 0.7W/m2K.
Which means that ,unfortunately for me , this edition of Part L was in force when my house was built in 1997 which is why they could get away with relatively poorly insulated external walls.
As regards, retro filled cavity wall insulation, apparently mine was done under the government 'CERO' scheme with the work carried out by the insulation company on behalf of the energy supplier (eon in my case ) , eon paid the installer and eon claimed the grant from the government.
As I said , the insulation company did all the paperwork so I wasn't involved in making any claim and I did not pay anybody anything.

 

[KenGMac]

Another bit of information as regards the suitability of retro fill cavity insulation? worth a look?

http://nhbccampaigns.co.uk/landingpages/techzone/previous_versions/2010/Part6/section1/appendix.htm

 

[endecotp]

This form an [English] government web site

https://www.government-grants.co.uk/free-insulation

No, “government-grants.co.uk” is NOT a government website.

It’s apparently owned by two guys called Ian Greener and Mark Smith.
Other domain names they may have been involved with include “fastest bridging loans dot co dot uk” and “uk debt advisers dot co dot uk”.
That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a scam, but....

 

[endecotp]

apparently mine was done under the government 'CERO' scheme with the work carried out by the insulation company on behalf of the energy supplier (eon in my case ) , eon paid the installer and eon claimed the grant from the government.

Thanks for clarifying.

Your description of the scheme is accurate except for the last bit, nothing is paid from the government to the energy company; it is paid for by the energy company. Of course they only pay for it because the government says they have to, but ultimately it’s energy company shareholders, not taxpayers, who have paid for your insulation.

 

[JohnD]

ultimately it’s energy company shareholders, not taxpayers, who have paid for your insulation.

customers.

not shareholders.

look at your electricity bill


The costs that make up energy bills

Buying the energy our customers use 41%

Delivering the energy to your home 28%

Government environmental and social schemes 12%

Looking after you which includes billing, customer

service and IT systems 8%

VAT 5%

Our supply business profit 6%

 

[endecotp]

Yes I did think about the customer/shareholder thing after posting it.
But try this thought experiment: if the “obligation” disappeared, would the prices drop or would the prodits increase by that 12%?

 

[JohnD]

Utilities companies are controlled in what they are allowed to charge.

If the government forces then to spend a billion on buying pink balloons for every customer, that billion goes straight on the bills. .

Remove the pink balloon obligation and a billion comes straight off the bills.

Energy supply is not a free market.

 

[Leofric]

Well, Avocet should be well confused by now ! Anyway if I am paying indirectly through my energy bills at least I am getting something back for subsidising the energy bills of other people who covered their roofs with solar panels when I couldn't afford it !