Internorm standard guidelines/recommendations

[ClairedM]

Any one have a copy of these that they could send me?

 

In particular I'm looking for the details of how the windows/sliding doors/doors should be put in the window holes.

1. As in, what are the min-max margins that should be around the frames?

2. What substrate should be pins/screws be put into?

3. What should the sliding doors rest on? 

and the like.

 

[Marvin]

Hi @ClairedM

 

You may wish to contact Internorm telling them that you need to prepare the building for the windows and you need this information before placing an order.

https://uk.internorm.com/?utm_source=uk-sm09&utm_medium=GMB&utm_campaign=GMB

 

Or the supplier and or installer you are proposing to use.

 

Good luck 

Marvin

[alexo]

I imagine 'Internorm's recommended installation methods' which was what was stated on my contract from the supplier, must be listed in a document somewhere available to installers. However it seems like this is a closely guarded secret.  

 

I don't have this document either I'm afraid.  I have also been trying to get hold of this, having been in communication with the rep at Internorm.  The first time I requested this, I was told 'this changes depending on the envelope of the building'.  I replied with the details of the envelope of my house and received no further responses when I continued to request this.

 

Of course I massively regret not insisting upon having the details of this before placing the order.  I had just assumed that high spec windows would be fitted in a high performance way, rather than just the basic legal minimum of watertight and a basic amount of draught proofing.  Maybe they would be more forthcoming with the details if they didn't already know I was in the middle of an install.

 

Someone else on here has previously mentioned that these methods for standard (non-Passive) Internorm installs are just the legal minimum that could be fit in the UK.  I.e. according to building regs and the GGF guidelines.  This makes a lot of sense, especially with the disappointment clearly shown online (forums and reviews) with many who have had Internorm's fitted as replacement windows, and didn't know to ask for Passive fit.

 

I think this problem stems from the vague term 'reasonably airtight' used in the building regs for replacement windows.  I think it or GGF also mention 'draught proof'.  Again vague.  If there was a number, method, or materials attached to this (as is the case with Passive fit) it would be easy to prove and hold them to.  As it stands it allows for all manner of sins in fitting replacement windows in the UK, so long as the 'making good' is done to a reasonable standard.

 

I also think that as far as common practice seems to be with Internorm installers, they can claim 'will be fit with Internorm's recommended installation methods'.  This is misleading to the average consumer, who would logically believe this to provide a higher standard of fit than for a cheaper window such as a low cost UPVC one.

 

I am going to put in a formal complaint in to Internorm about this.

 

With energy prices so high, it wouldn't surprise me if this becomes a more common issue in the UK, as an increasing amount of regular punters who are in the market for replacement double glazing as a once in a lifetime purchase, get sold Internorm on the 'triple for double' offer, and are not particularly well informed about how important the fit is.  I assume this hasn't been such an issue in the past with Internorm's usual customer base (those doing a high spec self-build or extension) since they are often advised by a professional such as an architect, or have probably done more research and are aiming for specific targets.

 

It is a flipping disgraceful carry on if you ask me, especially given the importance of improving airtightness in Britain's poorly insulated housing stock.  There should be a moral imperative upon window companies starting from the top down to improve minimum standards of fit given the climate crisis.  I would expect this to start with high spec companies like Internorm.

 

If anyone does have a copy of these 'recommended installation methods' I would also be very interested.

Edited June 21 by alexo

[ClairedM]

On 20/06/2024 at 19:57, Marvin said:

Hi @ClairedM

 

You may wish to contact Internorm telling them that you need to prepare the building for the windows and you need this information before placing an order.

https://uk.internorm.com/?utm_source=uk-sm09&utm_medium=GMB&utm_campaign=GMB

 

Or the supplier and or installer you are proposing to use.

 

Good luck 

Marvin

Thank you.

[ClairedM]

On 21/06/2024 at 11:33, alexo said:

I imagine 'Internorm's recommended installation methods' which was what was stated on my contract from the supplier, must be listed in a document somewhere available to installers. However it seems like this is a closely guarded secret.  

 

I don't have this document either I'm afraid.  I have also been trying to get hold of this, having been in communication with the rep at Internorm.  The first time I requested this, I was told 'this changes depending on the envelope of the building'.  I replied with the details of the envelope of my house and received no further responses when I continued to request this.

 

Of course I massively regret not insisting upon having the details of this before placing the order.  I had just assumed that high spec windows would be fitted in a high performance way, rather than just the basic legal minimum of watertight and a basic amount of draught proofing.  Maybe they would be more forthcoming with the details if they didn't already know I was in the middle of an install.

 

Someone else on here has previously mentioned that these methods for standard (non-Passive) Internorm installs are just the legal minimum that could be fit in the UK.  I.e. according to building regs and the GGF guidelines.  This makes a lot of sense, especially with the disappointment clearly shown online (forums and reviews) with many who have had Internorm's fitted as replacement windows, and didn't know to ask for Passive fit.

 

I think this problem stems from the vague term 'reasonably airtight' used in the building regs for replacement windows.  I think it or GGF also mention 'draught proof'.  Again vague.  If there was a number, method, or materials attached to this (as is the case with Passive fit) it would be easy to prove and hold them to.  As it stands it allows for all manner of sins in fitting replacement windows in the UK, so long as the 'making good' is done to a reasonable standard.

 

I also think that as far as common practice seems to be with Internorm installers, they can claim 'will be fit with Internorm's recommended installation methods'.  This is misleading to the average consumer, who would logically believe this to provide a higher standard of fit than for a cheaper window such as a low cost UPVC one.

 

I am going to put in a formal complaint in to Internorm about this.

 

With energy prices so high, it wouldn't surprise me if this becomes a more common issue in the UK, as an increasing amount of regular punters who are in the market for replacement double glazing as a once in a lifetime purchase, get sold Internorm on the 'triple for double' offer, and are not particularly well informed about how important the fit is.  I assume this hasn't been such an issue in the past with Internorm's usual customer base (those doing a high spec self-build or extension) since they are often advised by a professional such as an architect, or have probably done more research and are aiming for specific targets.

 

It is a flipping disgraceful carry on if you ask me, especially given the importance of improving airtightness in Britain's poorly insulated housing stock.  There should be a moral imperative upon window companies starting from the top down to improve minimum standards of fit given the climate crisis.  I would expect this to start with high spec companies like Internorm.

 

If anyone does have a copy of these 'recommended installation methods' I would also be very interested.

Well said.

I completely agree.