Any experiences of SWIP internal wall insulation?

[orwhel]

I'm having a few home improvement measures carried out under the eco scheme, including a new boiler and central heating system. The company undertaking the work are stipulating that I have to have internal internal wall insulation or the work can't go ahead. It's a great chunk of money to have the heating system replaced so I'm obliged to go ahead with it, but reluctant especially after reading a bunch of horror stories about IWI.

They're installing a swip internal wall insulation system and have given me the choice of going with 65mm or 95mm thickness. I've relayed my concerns about interstitial condensation and the general industry, but I got given the usual spiel.

What are your thoughts?
They're planning to start work on Monday, so I need to make a decision on this by tomorrow.

I should add that my property is a solid brick semi, built in around 1900.

Edited by orwhel on Tuesday 17th February 12:50

[OutInTheShed]

I wouldn't touch it with someone else's stick.

It can be great, if done properly, as part of a back-to-brick refurb, with all the minor problems sorted.
But as a quick fix I think the risk of significant problems is very high.

There are plenty of cases of this going wrong.

Also 95mm is a lot to lose from a room.

[orwhel]

OutInTheShed said:

I wouldn't touch it with someone else's stick.

It can be great, if done properly, as part of a back-to-brick refurb, with all the minor problems sorted.
But as a quick fix I think the risk of significant problems is very high.

There are plenty of cases of this going wrong.

Also 95mm is a lot to lose from a room.

I somewhat agree with you.

They won't be going back to brick, just layering it on top of what's already there.

I'll be speccing the 65mm system if I go ahead with it. This means I lose about 3".

One of my concerns is the window cills. They're hard wood and period correct. I asked the installer what they intended to do about them and was told they'd just cover them with plastic cills. There was absolutely no consideration given to it until i'd asked about it. I said I want hard wood cills and they said they'd address it during installation. It doesn't fill me with confidence.

I've had a word with swip and they tell me that the wall has no load bearing capacity unless there are studs placed exactly where you need to screw into, and you can only rely on the plasterboard. This is also troubling as I have no idea where I'll be needing to mount things, but I guess that's no different to any other stud wall?

Edited by orwhel on Tuesday 17th February 17:06

[TooLateForAName]

The BBA cert clause 9.1.5 refers to a requirement for the installer to assess the risks of interstitial condensation and the impact on the wall of reduced temp - longer drying time and consequent damp.

I much prefer external insulation.

[OzzyR1]

orwhel said:

OutInTheShed said:

I wouldn't touch it with someone else's stick.

It can be great, if done properly, as part of a back-to-brick refurb, with all the minor problems sorted.
But as a quick fix I think the risk of significant problems is very high.

There are plenty of cases of this going wrong.

Also 95mm is a lot to lose from a room.

I somewhat agree with you.

They won't be going back to brick, just layering it on top of what's already there.

I'll be speccing the 65mm system if I go ahead with it. This means I lose about 3".

One of my concerns is the window cills. They're hard wood and period correct. I asked the installer what they intended to do about them and was told they'd just cover them with plastic cills. There was absolutely no consideration given to it until i'd asked about it. I said I want hard wood cills and they said they'd address it during installation. It doesn't fill me with confidence.

I've had a word with swip and they tell me that the wall has no load bearing capacity unless there are studs placed exactly where you need to screw into, and you can only rely on the plasterboard. This is also troubling as I have no idea where I'll be needing to mount things, but I guess that's no different to any other stud wall?

Edited by orwhel on Tuesday 17th February 17:06

You mention concern around cills, but what about skirtings, cornices, socket outlets, light switches - all these will need to be removed & replaced on the new lining. Not to mention treatment of window/door reveals, redecoration of walls and ceilings etc.

I would be extremely wary in your shoes.

[aeropilot]

OutInTheShed said:

I wouldn't touch it with someone else's stick.

Yep.

On a circa 1900 built property, it will end up being a clusterfk if you go ahead with this 'quick fix' method.

As said above, its achievable as part of a full gut, strip to shell and then rebuild renovation project on such an old property, but not otherwise.

[smokey mow]

Internal wall insulation is controllable under the building regulations so rather than “asking” what thickness you want they should be calculating the thickness to comply with the building regulations.

If they are also not a registered installer under of one of the self certification schemes they will need to submit a building regulations application before starting the works.

[SonicHedgeHog]

I have a lot of experience with damp in an 1800s house in Ireland. Insulating an old house is far more complicated than most people would ever believe. I would push back like hell on this. They’ll try and fob you off with their standard response but don’t give them any wriggle room. Otherwise they’ll be in and out in a flash and you won’t ever get them back to fix any problems.

[Fastpedeller]

TooLateForAName said:

The BBA cert clause 9.1.5 refers to a requirement for the installer to assess the risks of interstitial condensation and the impact on the wall of reduced temp - longer drying time and consequent damp.

I much prefer external insulation.

There have been major problems with external as well

[aeropilot]

Fastpedeller said:

TooLateForAName said:

The BBA cert clause 9.1.5 refers to a requirement for the installer to assess the risks of interstitial condensation and the impact on the wall of reduced temp - longer drying time and consequent damp.

I much prefer external insulation.

There have been major problems with external as well

Indeed.

All these mickey mouse quick fix retro fits, whether inside or outside, should be avoided like the plague.

Alas, there's no one in Govt that has a clue about it, and hence we get these daft ideas pushed out, and in many cases forced onto to people regardless of the later consequences.

[Fastpedeller]

aeropilot said:

Fastpedeller said:

TooLateForAName said:

The BBA cert clause 9.1.5 refers to a requirement for the installer to assess the risks of interstitial condensation and the impact on the wall of reduced temp - longer drying time and consequent damp.

I much prefer external insulation.

There have been major problems with external as well

Indeed.

All these mickey mouse quick fix retro fits, whether inside or outside, should be avoided like the plague.

Alas, there's no one in Govt that has a clue about it, and hence we get these daft ideas pushed out, and in many cases forced onto to people regardless of the later consequences.

If the reports are to be believed, there are hundreds of houses people are now unable to live in because of external insulation that was installed by Government-approved contractors. It seems the bill (for rectification) will run into millions, and nobody is willing to take responsibility for it.
I was 'offered' cavity wall insulation several years ago - whilst I accompanied the 'surveyor' when he walked around our bungalow to 'test drill' the wall. Our daughter looked online to check the validity of the warranty. It looked ok, and I asked the guy "What if there are any damp problems?" His response was "that's covered by the warranty". Next question: "But how's it rectified?" A. "The insulation can be sucked out". Q. "OK, but how is it removed from the remote corners where the damp would most likely occur?" He went quiet. I didn't get it done - I'd prefer to pay a bit extra on my heating than have a potential major problem.

[JoshSm]

orwhel said:

The company undertaking the work are stipulating that I have to have internal internal wall insulation or the work can't go ahead.

What does the contract say? It feels more like they want to boost their work than do something properly.

Personally I'd fk the whole thing off on this basis, the gain isn't worth the pain. Especially if it's as half arsed as it sounds.

[aeropilot]

JoshSm said:

orwhel said:

The company undertaking the work are stipulating that I have to have internal internal wall insulation or the work can't go ahead.

What does the contract say? It feels more like they want to boost their work than do something properly.

Personally I'd fk the whole thing off on this basis, the gain isn't worth the pain. Especially if it's as half arsed as it sounds.

Its because the OP is getting a Govt grant to do the work under the Eco scheme, so you are tied into the contractor BS, who are tied into the Govt grant BS.

Run a mile.

[orwhel]

I completly understand the response here, i'm also weary of it. However it would be foolish of me to turn down the free heating system (something which would cost me £7k+) and loft insulation top up. They're saying I can't have any of it if I don't accept the IWI, which they're doing first.

Yes it will need decorating, but the whole house needs a refresh anyway. It can easily be ripped down when I decide to decorate.

On a side note, would you bother replacing all the pipework if you heating system is 40+ years old? What kind of lifespan does it have? AFAIK older pipework should be of better quality than new stuff.

Edited by orwhel on Thursday 19th February 17:18

[aeropilot]

orwhel said:

However it would be foolish of me to turn down the free heating system (something which would cost me £7k+) and loft insulation top up.

If you go ahead with it, it will likely end up costing you a lot more than 7k later on down the line.

Your choice though, so hope you end up being happy with that choice.