U-value compliance – where are we now asks Russell Yates of AluK

This time last year, I warned about the number of aluminium systems companies who I felt were either deliberately or inadvertently misleading customers on their products’ U-Values. As far as AluK were concerned, the claims being made by some were simply not achievable with the level of thermal enhancements which we could see being made to the products.

With fabricators and installers required to demonstrate compliance with Part L after the changes to Building Regs, I made it clear that I felt suppliers had a fundamental responsibility to deliver products that actually do what they say they do.

12 months on, I’m pleased to say there has been some positive progress on the issue – but perhaps not quite as much as I had hoped.

The biggest change has been the advent of the CAB’s U-Value Charter, launched at the FIT Show in May, which all the systems companies who are members of the CAB have now signed up to. This effectively states that we will all use standard methodology to calculate the U-Values of our windows and doors based on the EN14351 and BFRC sizes (1230 x 1480mm for windows, 1230 x 2180 for doors below 3.6m² and 2000 x 2180 for doors above 3.6m²) and be completely transparent about the results. Only then can customers make side by side comparisons between products and be 100% sure that what they are fabricating and fitting are fully compliant.

AluK was obviously one of the driving forces behind the charter because we wanted to see greater transparency around U-Values for fabricators and installers, and ultimately create a more level playing field amongst suppliers.

We were using standard methodology figures long before we signed up, but it’s good to see the same level of commitment now coming from elsewhere – even if we haven’t yet seen a wholesale updating of figures from every one of the member signatories.

It’s important to note here though that there are still some very well-known names in the aluminium industry who are not members of the CAB, and they haven’t given anything like the same undertaking to be consistent and transparent with their figures.

I would certainly urge fabricators to check the CAB website to see who has signed up – and who hasn’t – and ask to see evidence from every supplier of their testing methodology, along with clarification of the glass being used and updates on their calculations.

Having just been elected President of the CAB, this is exactly the kind of area where I think the CAB can drive positive change in the industry. The CAB exists to ‘promote and protect’ the use of aluminium in both the commercial and domestic sectors, and raising standards on testing and compliance has to be an integral part of that.

The CAB’s leadership team and board are committed to giving the aluminium sector a stronger voice with government and legislators and making aluminium, with all its inherent sustainability benefits and long term value, the material of choice in construction.

We recognise that this will only be achieved though if we come from a position of strength and unity, and the CAB charter is a great example of that unity in action.

I had hoped that a year after I voiced my concerns, I would be able to say that the problem of misreporting U-Values had been resolved. In reality though, it does still exist, but only in pockets and a bit less blatantly than previously – largely I believe because of the light that AluK and the CAB continues to shine on the issue.