Structural Insurance Cover for Ytong

atech

Doing a bit of research into Ytong blocks at present, contacted their Irish supplier who said that Premier Guarantee cover them but after speaking to Premier I dont think this is the case as they only cover products which have third party certification.

Only certification I can find on Ytong is a quality management and factory production cert, but no IAB, BBA, ETA, BM Trada, BRE.....

Obviously there have been numerous houses built with these so is it a case that no insurance cover is in place and the P.I insurance of the architect/engineer signing-off will be held responsible?

Poor Uncle Tom

atech wrote: »

.....so is it a case that no insurance cover is in place and the P.I insurance of the architect/engineer signing-off will be held responsible?

How did you reach that conclusion?

atech

It wasn't a conclusion, more of a question.

The architect/engineer would be signing off on the building regulations. Specifically in this instance Part D- Materials to establish their fitness.

These blocks don't have ETA or IAB so that rules out compliance with Part D3 (b) & (c).

Although I cannot find a cert they possibly bear a CE Mark, Part D3 (a), but I understood that was just required for trading in the EU and didn't actually determine fitness for purpose.

Section 1.1 (a) Independent Certification and (b) Accrediated Laboratory Test are bascially the same as Part D3 (b) & (c) so that only leaves Section 1.1 (c) Performance in use to determine there fitness for purpose.

So to rephrase the question, if structural damage occurs could the architect/engineer be held responsible as they signed off to its fitness for purpose even if existing buildings have been built in a similar fashion.

sydthebeat

atech wrote: »

It wasn't a conclusion, more of a question.

The architect/engineer would be signing off on the building regulations. Specifically in this instance Part D- Materials to establish their fitness.

These blocks don't have ETA or IAB so that rules out compliance with Part D3 (b) & (c).

Although I cannot find a cert they possibly bear a CE Mark, Part D3 (a), but I understood that was just required for trading in the EU and didn't actually determine fitness for purpose.

Section 1.1 (a) Independent Certification and (b) Accrediated Laboratory Test are bascially the same as Part D3 (b) & (c) so that only leaves Section 1.1 (c) Performance in use to determine there fitness for purpose.

So to rephrase the question, if structural damage occurs could the architect/engineer be held responsible as they signed off to its fitness for purpose even if existing buildings have been built in a similar fashion.

if there is structural damage and it can be shown to be caused by a failure of the block then i would think the first port of call would be the manufacturer.

there is CE certification on their site quoting compliance with IS EN 771-4 which deals specifically with AAC blocks.

http://ecostein.net/CE_Certificate_english.pdf

atech

I seen that on their website alright but is that actually a CE Cert or just a factory production control cert. I understood a certificate of compliance (showing its compressive strenght, etc) is actually a CE Cert.

Even if it is a CE Cert what guarantee does the architect have that it is fit for purpose. For example there is a self-declaration route available to get a CE Mark where you get it tested in accordance with the relevant EN Standard and issue a declaration of conformity.

Compliance with the relevant EN Standard doesn't actually state its fitness for use. So for example if these blocks were used as a single leaf system and a problem occurred would it not be the architect that would bear the blame as he signed off on their use even though the manufacturer/supplier has shown details of this type of build on their website?

sydthebeat

atech wrote: »

So for example if these blocks were used as a single leaf system and a problem occurred would it not be the architect that would bear the blame as he signed off on their use even though the manufacturer/supplier has shown details of this type of build on their website?

have you ever seen a certificate to show fibreglass insulation does what it claims?? what about cavity blocks??

there is only so much an architect / engineer can do to validate the 'fit for purpose'ness of a product. It is the builders responsibility to build in compliance with the building regulations, as much as its the architects / engineers responsibility to check that the build complies. Building Reg part D is actually perhaps the most prescriptive of all the regs as it specifically states what is required to be classified a 'proper material'. However, the fudge begins when you try to unravel the legal spaghetti behind the reg.

The CE mark doesnt need to state the min and max values when they are stated in the standard being checked against.... but im obviously open for correction on that...

atech

I'm eating my way through that spaghetti and think I am coming closer to a conclusion

To answer your questions first, homebond structural insurance covers cavity blocks as they have shown by experience to be suitable for structural loadings etc, and if the building was not insured, section 1.1 (c) of the building regs Part D would cover the architect.

Attached is a link to Paroc's Insulations Certification. They have an ETA for their UNS37 and a Certificate of Conformity for all their products.
http://www.paroc.com/channels/com/building+insulation/official+documentation/search.asp
The important line in their cert of conformity is "This certificate attests that all provisions concerning the attestation of conformity and the preformances described in Annex ZA of the standard EN 13162:2001 were applied and that the products fulfil all the prescribed requirements". Plus the thermal conductivity's, fire resistance, etc are shown on the remainder of the cert.

In this case if there was an issue with the product, so long as it was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines the architect should be covered.

However Ytong's production control cert only states all provisions concerning the attestation of factory production control not conformity.

galhalmur

Hi All
just wondering if anyone has been able to contact anyone form Eco Stein Ltd. I have been trying for a week weeks now via email, mobile and landline info which they have on their website and have had no luck.
Anyone else in the same boat?