Guest28

Most of the people I went to school with who became tradesmen were generally not the nicest or the brightest. The better people were encouraged to go to university. It's just the way the system naturally works, people who do well at school are not encouraged to do a trade. Years ago when people were generally more religious you could find a lot of honest Christian tradesmen, but now that people are becoming less religious they seem to becoming more dishonest. You get a lot of these very rough foul mouthed tradesmen covered in tattoos who probably have a drink/drug problem.

I've been informed by a chartered architect I know that compliance with CDM regs is worryingly inadequate in many projects. These legally mandated protocols are often neglected, posing significant risks. A concerning trend has emerged where individuals, not certified as chartered architects, assume the role of principal designers. This group includes those with some design background or even no formal training at all, yet they present themselves as qualified architects. Unlike chartered architects, who face severe consequences, including potential deregistration for malpractice, these impostors operate with little oversight. These unqualified professionals are frequently the biggest culprits in failing to implement essential HSE requirements. Their services are cheaper, attracting cost-conscious clients and tradespeople who prefer less paperwork, despite the increased legal risks. The architect I know highlighted the systemic issue of enforcement. The government lacks the resources to proactively ensure compliance, with regulatory actions often triggered only after an incident occurs. Even then, penalties are minimal unless there are severe consequences. However, it’s not all bleak. Tools like the CDM Wizard can significantly ease the compliance burden. Drawing from my experience in the oil and gas industry, where HSE standards are rigorously maintained, I believe that once properly set up, such tools can simplify adherence to HSE protocols across projects.

In my opinion roof mounted PVs are a high risk - low reward option in the the UK. The lack of sunlight mean the rewards are quite low. You could also end up with the same thing that is happening in Germany, when so many people have PVs on the few days it is sunny there is too much electricity being produced and the grid can't handle it. The poor standard of tradepeople mean the risks are very high. You could have Billy MacBodge come and install your PVs then it will cost a fortune in repair bills years down the line when MacBodge is operating under a different limited company so isn't liable for the repair. Some family members of mine have ground mounted PVs and they have been quite good. Just wouldn't have them on my house because of the risks. People add in PVs just to get their SAPs calculations across the line. I don't think roof mounted PVs should count towards a SAPs calculation, shouldn't be incentivising people to do something risky.

I was looking for an EV charging point that also could be used to plug in a temporary garden office or a caravan etc. It was a pillar type I was looking for that could be used to either charge EVs or power a temp garden office. Its because I was looking at installing an EV charging point on our land about 30 meters from the houses, I wanted a 2 in one solution that could also be used to power other stuff if needed. Does anyone know if such a thing exists? I've tried a google search but can't really see anything.

The government has strengthened tenants rights so much it puts people off being a landlord. If a tenant stops paying rent it is extremely expensive and time consuming to get them evicted, in some cases it is almost impossible to evict them and they can effectively live for free in your house. If the government wants more landlords they should simplify the process of evicting people who stop paying rent. Also they are talking about preventing landlords from having blanket bans on pets, this is ridiculous. For multiple reasons a landlord should be able to prevent cats or dogs from being in their property. They want more landlords yet are talking about brining in things like this which will put people off.

Personally I would never entertain the idea of putting PVs on the roof of my house and I would never buy a house that had PVs on the roof. In this country the risks far outweigh the benefits. The cost of one roof repair would wipe out the savings that the PVs bring. The cost of scaffolding and tradespeople etc. to do the repairs. There are lots of cases of PVs causing houses to burn down, birds nest under the panels and the panels get hot and ignite the nesting material etc. among other causes of fire. I would just give me anxiety thinking about all the things that could go wrong for the very limited generation of electricity. One of the biggest problems in this country the poor standard of workmanship from tradesmen, you could get Bodgit and Scarper LTD to install your PVs then when you have problems with your PVs years down the line Bodge the Builder has put that company bust and is now operating under a different limited company and you have no comeback.

It is a clear paradox and an example of double-think to consider banning gas boilers while allowing WBS. Gas boilers are significantly cleaner than wood or coal-burning when it comes to heating. Banning a cleaner option while allowing a more polluting one is not only nonsensical but also contradicts the very principles of environmental protection. Furthermore, such a ban would likely encourage people to switch from gas boilers to WBS, exacerbating pollution issues rather than mitigating them. Additionally, examining the map of Smoke Control Areas in Scotland, I find it unbelievable that there are no smoke control areas north of Dundee. In my opinion, all urban areas should automatically be designated as smoke control areas, banning solid fuel fires. They are antisocial in urban settings and contribute to unnecessary air pollution.

Looks like the Scottish government are going to be making a u-turn. Kate Forbes is allegedly behind the u-turn. Her husband is part owner of a chimney sweeping firm called Firework Chimney Sweep. So she has 'skin in the game' so to speak. A ban would harm her husband's business. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24350490.snp-screeching-u-turn-wood-burning-stove-ban/

Yes tradespeople are a lot more regulated and better trained in Germany compared to the UK, they have to do years of training. In the UK tradespeople can do a few short courses (if they even do that) then start trading as Bodgit and Scarper Ltd.

A lot of these 'modern and sustainable' builds with timber cladding and sheet roofing won't stand the test of time. They will be rotten and full of water ingress within a couple of decades. They're not that cheap either, the cost difference in between getting one of them and getting one with block walls and a slate roof that will last for a lot longer is not that much. These companies promote timber cladding and sheet roofing because it requires a lot less time and skill to do so they can increase their profit margins.

At least when we were in the EU there was a steady supply of Polish tradesmen who did good work for a reasonable price. Several years ago a friend of mine was renovating a flat in Edinburgh, he did a lot of the work himself, but wanted to get a tradesman in to do the bathroom as he thought that was above his level of skill, he got a lot of quotes and the best one was from a Polish tradesman who did it for about £4k. A lot of the Scottish tradesmen were quoting £10k+ the highest was about £15k. It wasn't a big bathroom either, not more than 3m x 3m at a rough estimate. The Polish worker did a great job for that price, he is still in the same flat and has never had a problem with the bathroom. I hate the way a lot of British tradesmen price jobs, there can be no nuance to their quote as to what you are actually looking for, they just look at the square meterage and give a really high price per m2. The Polish guys tend to give a bit more nuance in their quotes, not a blanket price per m2.

Build Better Things is a very informative channel. In the video below he highlights some very common mistakes people make building houses. Own up who has done them??

One critical issue that's not getting enough attention in the housing crisis debate is the lack of properly trained tradesmen who charge reasonable prices. From my personal experience, the only affordable options are usually people without formal construction training—essentially DIY enthusiasts or handymen who lack a thorough understanding of building regulations. How can we ensure that construction complies with building regulations when there's no way to verify that these workers are knowledgeable about them? Hiring someone who has undergone proper training and certification is incredibly expensive. The government needs to address this by establishing a robust system for training and certifying tradesmen. We need more funding for apprenticeships and training programmes to create a workforce of skilled tradesmen. Currently, the Scottish government spends vast amounts of money sending people to university for what are often considered 'mickey mouse' courses. This funding would be better allocated to training tradesmen. It's a matter of supply and demand—the shortage of qualified tradesmen allows those who are skilled to charge exorbitant prices. Increasing the supply of properly trained tradesmen would help reduce costs and make it more affordable to undertake construction projects. Even those who have land and want to build homes are deterred by the high prices charged by tradesmen. This is a significant issue that rarely gets the attention it deserves in discussions about the housing crisis. Addressing this could make a substantial difference in tackling the housing shortage.

The Scottish government has declared a national housing emergency. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4n11j180lzo

It’s clear that there are valid concerns about the feasibility and effectiveness of a stringent licensing system. However, I believe there could be a simpler and more feasible approach. Local authorities already manage a "street trader license" for those selling goods on public streets. What if we expanded this framework slightly to include a "construction trader license"? The concept would be straightforward: anyone wanting to perform paid construction work on property they don't own would need this license. The barrier to obtain this license could be intentionally low—perhaps just filling out an application form and completing a basic health and safety course. The primary goal here wouldn’t be to create hurdles but to provide a mechanism to help filter out those who consistently underperform or engage in dishonest practices. Honest, hard-working tradespeople would likely welcome this as it legitimizes their professionalism. This system would empower local authorities to revoke the license of those with multiple complaints or proven malpractice, effectively preventing them from continuing to perform substandard work. This would not only deter "cowboy tradesmen" but also encourage them to improve their standards, as the risk of losing their license—and livelihood—could be a significant deterrent. Furthermore, this could bring peace of mind to consumers. When hiring, they could simply verify a tradesperson’s licensed status. Those without a license would be less likely to be hired, gradually weeding out the unscrupulous operators. This idea isn’t about stifling innovation or creating bureaucracy; it’s about using existing frameworks to protect consumers and elevate trade standards.

I've noticed a recurring problem with ASHPs that largely stems from improper installations. Channels like Skill Builder and Heat Geek have highlighted multiple issues in their video series, which are definitely worth checking out. One of the root causes appears to be the lax regulation in the UK's construction industry. Unfortunately, this has allowed a proliferation of unqualified tradesmen who often perform substandard work. These "cowboy tradesmen" not only tarnish the reputation of ASHPs but also leave homeowners facing costly repairs. It's a disturbing cycle where these companies bodge jobs, file for bankruptcy, and then simply start anew under a different name, escaping accountability. To combat this, I believe we need much tighter regulations. It's crucial that anyone performing paid construction work should hold a personal license. This license should be revocable if standards are not met, preventing repeat offenders from continuing to operate. Currently, the system does little to discourage malpractice, allowing these individuals to repeatedly start over without facing significant consequences. Stricter oversight would not only improve the quality of work but also protect consumers from fraudulent practices.

Here's an interesting video from On The Trowel about over boarding Artex ceilings. At the beginning of the video he warns people about the dangers of asbestos in Artex and tells them to take safety precautions and wear a mask etc. Then when he does the job he hammers the Artex and the dust covers his face with no mask.

On The Trowel is a channel I've been watching recently after he featured with Rodger in Skill Builder. He is a real character. https://www.youtube.com/@Onthetrowel/videos

There is a youtube channel I really like called Roofing Portal Sydney Roof Repairs. He is a roofer based in Sydney, Australia. He seems a very knowledgeable and honest roofer. A lot of tradesmen on youtube are jack-the-lad cowboy types, but this guy is very professional and serious. A lot more sensible than youtubers like The Roofing Outlaw. Here he makes a video about all the problems associated with putting solar panels on a roof, something I would never have done to any house I lived in. The solar roof lobby won't be happy with his honesty.

The debate surrounding wood burners often seems shrouded in a haze as thick as the smoke they emit, particularly from the pro-wood burner lobby. They tout sustainability through planting trees as an offset to burning wood, but the comparison barely holds up under scrutiny. This logic is akin to saying that having five children justifies the act of harming four because you've increased the population net-positive. This sort of argument is not just flawed, it's dangerous. Let's cut through the smog and face the hard facts: solid fuel fires, including wood burners, are the most polluting form of heating. When comparing the emissions of different heating sources, gas comes out as the least polluting option. It would be utterly preposterous to ban gas heating for its emissions and give wood burners a free pass when they are clearly the worst offenders in terms of air quality impact. Wood burners are notorious for their high emission of PM2.5 particles, which several scientific studies have linked to a myriad of health issues, including cancer. The nostalgia for a time when everyone had an open fire and seemed to be in good health is a dangerous form of selective memory—much like those who recall a smoker living to a ripe old age as a justification for tobacco use. It's about probabilities, not guarantees. Sure, living next to a wood burner doesn't guarantee health issues, but it certainly increases the risks. And let's not forget the social aspect. The smoke from wood burners can be incredibly intrusive, encroaching on the personal space and well-being of neighbours. There ought to be regulations in place, such as mandatory distances from other properties—say, 100 meters—before one can use a solid fuel fire. It's baffling and frankly irresponsible to stroll through towns like Inverness and see wood burners in densely populated urban areas. Such practices should be curtailed for the sake of public health and social consideration. We need to come to terms with the fact that what was acceptable or unnoticed in the past is not sustainable or healthy in today's world. It's time to clear the air, literally and figuratively, and demand more responsible and less polluting heating solutions.

The environmental and health hazards associated with wood burners, particularly the PM2.5 emissions, cannot be ignored. As the attached image clearly demonstrates, traditional wood burners emit a significant amount of these fine particles compared to other heating methods. PM2.5 particles pose a serious health risk as they can penetrate deep into the lungs and are linked to a range of ailments, from respiratory issues to heart disease. Furthermore, the idea that gas boilers could be banned for their emissions while wood burners remained permissible was a point of contention for me. Gas, in comparison to solid fuels, burns much cleaner. The real concern is in urban settings where houses are in close proximity. Here, wood burners can essentially "gas" neighbors with pollutants, especially when users are burning wet wood or treated materials like pallets, which release even more harmful substances. I would advocate for a rule that only allows open fires or wood burners in properties that are a significant distance from others, perhaps 100 meters or more, to prevent this kind of neighborhood pollution.

Norwegians paint their timber buildings, they don't leave them to silver aka rot. Also builders use timber that easily rots here. In my area I see lots of timber clad houses completely rotten and they're only 15-20 years old. Houses with block walls are still going strong after 150 years, just need a lick of paint.

Some of these modular housing companies are basically selling glorified sheds for high prices. I would never pay for a house that has timber clad walls and sheet roofing like a lot of them have, they will be rotten and full of water ingress in about 15 years. I would build one that has block walls and a slate roof.

This is what ChatGPT told me: Geological Conditions: The effectiveness of geothermal heat pumps (GHPs), especially those utilizing boreholes to access geothermal energy, heavily depends on the geological conditions of the area. The mention of "hot rock" refers to geothermal gradients, which are more favorable in some regions than others. In areas with volcanic activity or hot springs, for example, the geothermal gradient is higher, making geothermal energy more accessible and efficient. The UK's geology is not as conducive to high-temperature geothermal energy as some other regions, like Iceland or parts of Scandinavia. This doesn't mean geothermal heat pumps are ineffective in the UK; rather, they may not achieve the same efficiency levels seen in areas with more favorable geothermal conditions. Industry Practices: The reply also highlights issues within the UK's ground source heat pump industry, suggesting that a lack of expertise and the presence of poor-quality work have impacted the sector. In any emerging technology or energy solution, the quality of workmanship and the expertise of the providers play crucial roles in its success and public perception. If early adopters face problems due to poor installation or ineffective systems, it can lead to skepticism and reluctance among potential users. Market Dynamics: The scenario described suggests that market dynamics, where lower-quality providers undercut better-qualified companies, have also played a role. This can lead to a situation where the market is flooded with subpar installations, diminishing the overall confidence in the technology and making it difficult for higher-quality providers to compete. In summary, while geological conditions may not be as optimal in the UK for high-temperature geothermal energy exploitation as in some other countries, the technology for low to medium enthalpy systems (like those used in ground source heat pumps) is still viable. The issues appear to stem more from industry practices, the expertise of providers, and market dynamics rather than the technology itself being unsuitable. Addressing these challenges could help unlock the potential for geothermal energy in the UK, similar to its successful deployment in Sweden and other countries.