Facebook | Double Glazing Jobs | Guest Contributions | Contact | Terms

Renegade Conservatory Guy

Join RenegadeClub and get FREE email updates from me...

Archive for the ‘Energy Rated Windows’ Category

Interview with Alan Fielder of Edgetech

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Alan Fielder small

How do you feel the impending changes to compliance with building regulations in October will affect the industry as a whole?

My feeling is it will have a tremendous affect on the entire industry. If the proposed Building Regulations are passed every single replacement window sold will have to have a C rating with the British Fenestration Ratings Council. This will impact on every business throughout the supply chain as suppliers will need to ensure they are supplying energy efficient alternatives, just as window companies will need to ensure they are using the most advanced technologies to meet legislation. 

Do you feel that companies in our industry are ready for these changes?

While there are forward thinking companies that embraced Window Energy Ratings as the differentiating opportunity they were early on, the majority of the market still hasn’t achieved a Window Energy Rating and if anything are as confused and worried about the process of getting one as they ever have been. They have had plenty of time but they haven’t taken any action. 

Even for those companies with Window Energy Ratings on their standard window – when they put fully reinforced (e.g. foiled) windows through the same process for example, will they still achieve a C rating? And if they do, will they be able to afford to put all of their combinations of windows through the process? 

It would also seem that there are numerous companies who believe that because their window achieves the perfromance required for a given rating, they are entitled to sell their products as energy rated. This is not the case. A window only has a BFRC Window Energy Rating when it has gone through the WER submission process, when it is registered at www.bfrc.org and when it carries the appropriate label. 

That’s why Edgetech has launched the ‘Journey to C’ initiative (www.journeytoc.co.uk) – the nationwide series of FREE workshops to help companies achieve the ratings they need. We recognise what a huge challenge this is for the industry and wanted to offer as much practical support for companies still daunted by the WER process or confused about how the proposed changes to Building Regulations will affect them.  

There seems to be a lot of concern about the real value of solar gain, which plays a major part in calculating a window’s energy rating. Do you feel U-Values are a better way of comparing different windows relative energy efficiency?

It would seem to me to be just as daft to ignore solar gain as it is to overrate it. Cleverer men than me have put their heads together to come up with a rating system that has the approval of government. I don’t really believe that CLG are adopting the BFRC Window Energy Rating scheme as the preferred method of Document L compliance because it is perfect but rather because it is there, it is functional and it is cost effective. To that end I prefer to get on with helping companies get on board with it, use it to their commercial advantage and get on with running their businesses. 

Personally, I’m concerned that having WERs as the only way of complying wit building regulations will stifle innovation, choice and create problems should any company in the supply chain cease trading. For example, what will an installer do if the company they purchase sealed units from ceases trading? Surely there needs to be a quick way for installers and fabricators to switch to an equivalent product from an equivalent supplier?

I understand your concern but there are provisions within the BFRC for licence submissions to include more than one supplier and the Licence of Addition option enables licence holders to use more than one supplier and more than one glazing combination in their WER offering. 

Following on from the above question, we currently have our energy rated windows tested with Swisspacer. Assuming Super Spacer is a similar Warm Edge product, what process would Conservatory Outlet and its installers have to go through to make such a minor alteration? How long would it take and what costs associated? 

Well of course I wouldn’t consider our unique Super Spacer product to be ‘similar’ to anything else! But for the purpose of your question, to make any product component changes; frame, mullion, sash, glazing bead, glass, spacer, glazing cavity fill, gasketry or even reinforcement requires a new thermal simulation report and possibly a new system air leakage report. This would then need a new BFRC submission and a new licence. This process need not take any longer than a week or two depending on the availability of the required technical reports and the workload at BFRC and your Independent Agent. The reports should be available from systems suppliers either free or at nominal cost, though if you have to get your own simulation reports done they will cost you somewhere between £500 and £1500 each. The change should be able to be incorporated into your existing IA audit regime so there should only be nominal costs involved here though this will need to be clarified with your IA. Current BFRC licence cost is £200 per product per annum. 

I understand there are currently around 300 companies in the UK with an energy rating but FENSA claim to have over 9000 companies in their scheme. Can the simulators simulate, the IAs audit and the BFRC register the rest of the industry by October? 

The simple answer is probably not. Before launching our ‘Journey to C’ initiative we considered very carefully the timing of the events and decided not to delay because if the proposed Building Regulations are approved in April, the industry would have even less time to prepare. ‘Journey to C’ will only scratch the surface of what needs to be done but at least we’re doing all we can to support our customers and potential customers meet up and coming legislation.  

Of course now we risk the Building Regulations not being passed or being changed, but in our view although this removes the urgency, the market will continue to move towards Window Energy Ratings and I honestly believe that companies without a rating will soon start to feel the pinch if they’re not already. 

Do you think that these proposed changes will ultimately force many smaller sealed unit manufacturers, PVC-U fabricators and installers out of business? 

I don’t think this will necessarily be the case but of course with any huge shift in legislation that let’s not forget costs a lot of money, this is a risk. All the more reason however to be prepared sooner rather than later. It’s the smaller companies that sit back and wait to see what happens with Building Regulations and how it will affect them, that will be caught short. Smaller companies that grab the bull by the horns have every chance of stealing a march on their competitors if they act sooner rather than later. 

While I understand that many people are fearful of the consequences of the proposed changes and nobody actually wants to see change for the sake of change, and I also understand that some sectors see current trends and proposed legislation as restrictive to their historic trading patterns, we are operating against a backdrop where the need to reduce emissions, provide ourselves with some energy security and conserve our fossil resources while we develop renewables, means that to just carry on as we are is no longer an option. 

In the bigger picture, governments the world over (I know there are some exceptions, but in the main) are looking to bring about fundamental changes in human behaviour on both individual and social fronts. Why should we be any different? A lot of the changes we will have to go through as individuals and as an industry may not be very comfortable but change we have to, and change we inevitably will.

——————————————-

For more information about Edgetech visit http://www.superspacer.co.uk/

WER scheme still has a long way to go before it can work

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Mark Hickox, Sales Director at Thermoseal Group discusses the requirement for ‘exchangeability’ of products in the Window Energy Rating Scheme (WER) and his view that the WER Scheme still has a way to go before it can work to the advantage of the whole industry.

 

mark hickox thermoseal

The EN1279 Euronorm for IG manufacturers allows for the ‘exchangeability’ of one brand of spacer for another one, so as long as a spacer is proven to provide the same or superior performance to the original test unit spacer, manufacturers can exchange products without the requirement for a re-test. This is the same for other IG unit components including sealant and desiccant.
We currently supply over half of the UK’s spacer requirements in the form of aluminium tube. This tube is sold with full details of its technical composition and proven performance information which means that insulated glass (IG) manufacturers can assess it in line with the current brand of aluminium spacer they are using and exchange the brand for a similar or better performing product.
 
Although we all agree that this system of ‘exchangeability’ must be regulated and controlled effectively to ensure that high standards of double glazing are encouraged and maintained, it ensures that the market remains open for new products. ‘Exchangeability’ will stop the market being dominated by a few organisations with plenty of available cash and big enough budgets to pay for hundreds of brand-specific tests.
 
‘Exchangeability’ also means that new products can be brought to market with the relative criteria proven by test data. This avoids component Manufacturers, IG manufacturers and window installers having to go through masses of red tape to change their products.
 
The Window Energy Rating (WER) scheme doesn’t currently allow for ‘exchangeability’ because simulations are performed based on IG components of which many are stated as brand names rather than a given specification of a technical data and a minimum performance standard.
 
This results in certain brands of WER products becoming successful because they have been included in more simulations than other products of equal or better technical composition and performance ability. This then leads to a crazy situation whereby a window installer cannot chose to install a superior product because it does not conform to his brand-specific WER.
 
Aren’t Window Installers entitled to choose a better performing product for their money?
 
There are many arguments for allowing ‘exchangeability’ of products which should be considered carefully. In particular, we must consider the fact that the financial stability of any suppliers into the IG market is not guaranteed. Over the past two years alone we have seen massive swings in exchange rates and commodity prices which have resulted in many seemingly solid businesses under-performing.   Therefore, it makes sound business sense and encourages a more stable and competitively priced market to allow for some flexibility. Besides, if the marketplace changes very quickly to warm edge as legislation suggests, then no single supplier will have the capacity to meet demand. This will leave IG manufacturers no choice but to use whatever they can get. The public, who will not notice the subtle differences between spacers, will be none the wiser.
 
Currently, WER scheme simulators are encouraged to use the branded products with the best performance figures to ensure that their customers can gain the highest possible Window Energy Ratings. Although the scheme is admirable in that it aims to improve the standards of double glazing in the interests of the homeowner, we’re concerned that it doesn’t seem to be working with IG businesses.
 
Only 38% of IG manufacturers positive about the WER scheme
 
We recently carried out a customer survey across our database of almost 2,000 IG manufacturers across the UK and only 38% of those who completed the survey were positive about the WER scheme. We also asked for their opinion as to whether they support the view that ‘exchangeability’ should be permitted in the WER scheme. Over 70% agreed that it should (the majority of the rest were undecided).
 
Over 70% agreed that product exchangeability should be permitted
 
Like many other suppliers into the UK window market, Thermoseal Group is planning to launch a new spacer tube (Thermobar) and several new products in 2010 which will have proven equal or higher thermal efficiency values than many of those currently available. However, operating under the current BFRC WER scheme guidelines, these products would have to be re-simulated by all users in all pre-registered WERs before they could be used.
 
We suggest that products should be selected by WER scheme simulators based on key performance indicators with relative criteria proven by the technical composition and test data of the product. This will put an element of the decision-making process back into the hands of the IG manufacturer who has the real experience of making sealed units. It will also help to retain a competitive business environment for suppliers.
 
As members of the GGF, we have invested a great deal of time and effort into attending many meetings around the UK so that we can join in the debates that we are assured will shape the future of our industry. So far there seems to be a lot of talking but the action remains to be seen.

Interview with Giles Willson – BFRC

Friday, February 19th, 2010

In response to my previous post about the impending changes to affect the WER scheme, Giles Willson from the BFRC agreed to answer a few questions I put to him as follows:

Can you explain how the impending changes to the compliance with building regulations in October will affect the industry as a whole?

We will not know what the actual requirements for the revision to Approved Document L Conservation of fuel and power & Approved Document F Ventilation until they are published at the beginning of April 2010.

We know from the 2009 consultations that for England and Wales the proposal is WER band C for replacement windows and U value 1.8 for replacement doors. Regarding trickle ventilators within replacement windows these are going to be considered mandatory for all replacements. In addition conservatories are being considered to have the dispensation for compliance under ADL removed; this would mean conservatories would need to meet a thermal performance standard.

Therefore if you supply or fit replacement windows, doors or conservatories you will be effected; the actual details will be known in April – so watch this space.

There seems to be a lot of concern about the real value of solar gain in WER calculations. Wouldn’t we be better just setting tougher U Value requirements as part of the scheme?

The WER calculation takes into account the following:

Whole window U value
Solar gain
Air leakage

We all know that solar gain does make a difference to a building; the averaged constant used by the BFRC method simplifies the situation. Do you really want different window ratings for a North, South, East or West elevation, let alone a North, North East window?

The whole window U value is an element of the BFRC equation, it is important but WER’s reflects the solar gain aspect – a unique feature of glass compared to most other products used on the exterior elevation of homes.

Personally, I’m concerned that having WER’s as the only way of complying with building regulations will stifle innovation, choice and creates problems should any company in the supply chain cease trading. For example, what will an installer do if the company they purchase sealed units from ceases trading? Surely there needs to be a quick way for installers and fabricators to switch to an equivalent product from an equivalent supplier?

The WER Licence specifies the components used in a window; if these are no longer available the approved window is not a viable option, however the question did state that if your unit maker ceases trading what do you do. In these cases another unit maker, who can manufacture to the original specification (exact components etc.) can be used.

Regarding innovation; different components can be modelled within a simulation to check the overall effect on the rating – this is a very cost effective solution therefore we could argue we assist innovation.

I understand there are currently around 300 companies in the UK with an energy rating, but FENSA claim to have over 9000 companies in their scheme. Can the simulators simulate, the IA’s audit and the BFRC register the rest of the industry by October?

The number of companies stated are correct however, we do need to think about the supply chain. Many FENSA installers only undertake a few jobs, they use windows which have been bought in; these installers will buy in a window which is WER registered and install this as compliant with regulations.

You also have companies who fabricate and install – these companies need to get their own Licence or be part of the Authorised Retailer Scheme.

The authorised retailer scheme; this enables companies to use their frame supplier licence and either source their own units or buy from the frame supplier, and have their own BFRC WER Licence.

Therefore the number of additional Licences will increase if WER band C is made mandatory however, not all 9000 FENSA Registered businesses will require their own Licences.

Do you think that these proposed changes will ultimately force many smaller sealed unit manufacturers, PVC-U fabricators and installers out of business?

We do not believe that it is the Governments intention that any company goes out of business due to regulatory changes. However, regardless if the Building Regulations require WER or whole window U values these would need to be calculated for every combination of glass, unit and frame.

With the more demanding specifications, products do require verification; therefore companies who have undertaken the preparation and have data on their products should survive. Companies who have not undertaken a simulation or have data on the whole window U value or WER will be disadvantaged and could result in their failure.

For more information about the BFRC visit http://www.bfrc.org/

Anger and confusion about WER scheme

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

I’ve been reading with interest the lengthening thread on the Thermoseal blog about the Window Energy Scheme and its impact on our industry.

It appears that there are many people concerned that the impending changes to the WER scheme in October will have a devastating effect on many small IGU fabricators, PVCu manufacturers and installers. Many of the comments refer to small businesses being pushed out of business and people being forced onto the dole.

I am becoming increasingly concerned myself that the industry is just not ready to replace U-Values with WERs as the only way to comply with building regulations in such a short time scale.

The whole thing seems badly thought out, and there seems to be a lot of confusion about what the changes will actually mean to individual businesses. There are even people questioning the validity of the science behind the rating system.

Our company has successfully been marketing energy rated windows for some time now, but I’m particularly frustrated with the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy it entails and the lack of flexibility we now have with sealed unit product supply.

So, I’m trying to fix up to have an interview on the website with Giles Wilson of the BFRC, although I’m yet to get a response to my request. I want to ask him for clarity on a couple of questions I need clarifying, but I would also like to hear any constructive questions you might like me to put to him.

Please submit your questions below, and then I’ll compile the best 8 or 10 and send them to him.

All gone gas or Argon gas – which do you prefer?

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

Guest Post by Steve Massey

As Document L of the building regulations continues to be tightened for both new and existing dwellings, Argon gas filling will become a standard process in sealed unit production.

BS EN 1279 is now mandatory for all sealed unit manufacturers and clearly defines the rules for gas filling compliance. EN1279 part 3 states : units must be within -5%/+10% of a specified single gas concentration and must have a leakage rate of less than 1% per year, over a 10-year period. It is reasonable to take 90% as the concentration level for Argon, because this is the level that all WER windows are calculated at.

As part of our EN1279 part 6 compliance responsibilities, we have to undertake daily testing of our gas production. We are required to log and record the concentration levels for a minimum of 3 random units per day from the Argon batch. We actually test many more to check that all our systems are working correctly. This ensures that our customers will not be faced with a huge product recall due to either illegal or unfit for purpose products. Ask Toyota what their current recall issue is going to cost them.

argon gas analysis

Our calibrated external Sparklike Gas test machine gives instant readings of Argon content. We can test a unit that is in-situ glazed, as easily as testing units from our production. We would recommend that any window company buying gas filled sealed units asks their sealed unit supplier for the following:

• To visit their factory and view their gas production and testing systems
• Examine their EN1279 part 3 pass report
• To bring their in house gas testing machine to site and test the gas content of random units
• Repeat these actions regularly to ensure that they maintain quality.

We welcome window companies with any doubts about their products to bring a unit to our factory for a confidential Argon concentration test. We think that the peace of mind would be worth the trip.

Regards

Steve Massey
Regency Glass Ltd
www.regencyglass.co.uk
www.sparklike.com

Is global warming happening? And are humans causing it?

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

I think about climate change quite often.

I’m a natural born worrier and it bothers me that humans may be affecting the climate in such a way that it may have a catastrophic effect if it is actually happening.

I’ve listened to the arguments put forward by the large number of scientists who believe that human activity is responsible for a planet that is warming up rapidly. I’ve also read information from various climate sceptics who believe it’s all nonsense and we have nothing to worry about.

To be honest, I’m not sure which side to believe.

When I speak with friends, family and colleagues about man-made climate change few people seem overly concerned, and even fewer seem prepared to change their habits. It worries me that should the world be heading towards a big increase in temperature during this century, then attitudes will have to change or we’re doomed.

I’m interested to know whether people reading this blog believe that global warming is happening, or not. Or, is it more than just me who’s confused. Considering our industry has a vital part to play in helping the UK reduce its CO2 emissions, do we believe there is a problem in the first place.

I’ve added a poll to the right hand side to see what you all think. And please leave any thoughts below that might help me make my mind up :-)

Window Energy Ratings? Exchangeability?

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

There’s an interesting blog post on the Thermoseal Group website, asking for opinions about the exchangeability of products deemed as ’similar’ being permitted in the WER scheme, so window companies and sealed unit suppliers are not bound to specific brands of a product.

You can leave your thoughts at:

http://www.thermosealgroup.com/blogs.cfm?theBlogID=B66D9A7F-15C5-F4C0-999A03944C8DBFDE

Smoke and mirrors | BFRC Rating Scheme

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Guest post by Kevin Ahern

In my recent quest to understand the BFRC rating scheme, I seem to have misunderstood a lot of what the scheme is all about so I thought I would try to simplify my current thoughts in the topic.

energy_rated-Window

The BFRC claim that A rated windows are net heat providers of your home. Ref. Giles Willson (at Glassex), Maurice Levitt (consultant and physicist), various correspondence, Graham Hinett (Fensa Times Dec 09) et al, and I am sure, many others, on numerous occasions, yet the BFRC guidance notes explain that the scheme is purely a comparison for windows and NOT an absolute performance measurement.

You see my confusion?

The document that explains the calculation of the formula (that has been peer, industry and academia reviewed) suggests that the sun provides more power in Aberdeen than it does in Plymouth. You see my confusion?

The same document goes into great detail about a Dutch reference house and quotes a number of British and European standards (and uses them negligibly) but does not state the reference source of the solar data that it uses. Calculations from the ASHRAE standards in the US suggest UK solar flux of up to 275 KWhrs/sq mtr (South facing) and 15Kwhrs /sq mtr (North), yet the BFRC manages to arrive at an average of 218.6 Kwhrs in their formula.

You see my confusion?

The scheme has been proposed as the only method of compliance to the 2010 part L regs, yet its administrators do not appear to grasp the issue of whether the WER is an accurate energy assessment or a marketing window comparison tool.

You see my confusion?

We are now being asked to pay lots of money to the BFRC for the privilege of having our products and businesses assessed to this compliance criteria in return for a colourful piece of paper, in which the resultant rating is neither a comparison or a net heat balance figure, or both.

You see my confusion?

Those amongst us who are actively selling A Rated windows to the public as net heaters of their property, could well be actually mis-selling and telling our customers lies (if the BFRC guidance notes 2007 are still valid). Could the customer sue you if your salesmen sold your windows as providing more heat than they lost?

You see my confusion?

Now the easy bit, this scheme has been purportedly government supported and designed to help the general public better understand the products we are selling them, ironically, along the way the BFRC appear to have forgotten the fundamentals of what their rating scheme is!

On the positive side, at least the scheme has the potential to be the only tool for the government to police our domestic replacement window industry, and a further benefit, by a strange coincidence (with the amount of solar gain claimed in the formula), it would also seem to offer an extended shelf life to some of the older generation Low E glasses, that, while not offering the best U values, let just enough more sun in to balance that problem out!

You see my confusion?

I have attempted to address some of these issues with the BFRC, but unfortunately, they give the impression that they are the scientists and therefore know best. The technical responses would appear to be based on the smoke and mirrors approach and actual answers very difficult to get to.

To summarise, I think the scheme has fallen between 2 camps, energy rating and window comparison, but wants to be seen as all things to all people. The problem lies in the application, accuracy and authenticity of the solar data , which for the purpose of windows in this heating dominant climate, is of limited value and should be thus be ignored anyway. The only data on the certificates, should be the window characteristics, (U and G values), and if the government wants to reduce fuel consumption it should insulate and use U values.

Any winter solar benefit (or summer overheating cost) is so dependant on specific site installation criteria (window size, orientation, trees, neighbouring houses and any other shading) that it has little or no place in a national window rating scheme for the installation of product into existing housing stock.

Ask yourself a question. Low iron glass, why ? Is this marvelous UV transparent product such a benefit to our society that we have long neglected it at our cost? Or is it just another gimmick to scrape a few more theoretical numbers on to our colourful pieces of paper?

Are we as an industry doing our bit to help James Strawbridge save the planet? Are we as an industry helping the government with the building regs 2010 Part L implementation?

Or, as some may argue, is the window industry taking the Mick out of Mr Strawbridge, the building regs, you and me, and worst of all, the consumer?

You see my confusion?

Kevin Ahern

Installing new window heaters!

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Guest post by Kevin Ahern

I was a bit tongue in cheek when I asked Matthew to host the poll to assess peoples’ perception of the window energy rating scheme, and although the voting numbers were never going to be argued as definitive, it could possibly be a good snapshot of the way some of the industry folk are feeling.

Currently (at 32 votes total) the most interesting response shows that 34% answered that they did not believe that an A rated window was a net heater of a house.

A Rated Windows

That surely is quite a remarkable figure that shows a lack of faith in the flagship energy appraisal system from the BFRC.

I would expect to see a good response from the believers in the domestic double glazing industry as the rating scheme is after all, sales based and (I’ve heard it said) salesmen are the easiest to sell to, because they believe in the sales methods! But only half of the responses are believers of the window energy rating claims.

I am a pleasantly surprised by the lack of votes for the third category, being cynical of the way a lot of the industry works I expected a few more votes in the ‘extra margin’ box.

So come on, put your clicks where it counts, maybe my cynicism prevented a genuine ‘I haven’t got a clue’ option, but put your thinking caps on and work it out, or just put click for your gut feeling, you never know it might be right!

If you want to, you can use this blog to say which way you voted, and why, or even say if you would have been a genuine undecided.

Remember, your vote counts!

Kevin Ahern

The wider issue of Window Scrappage that no-one is picking up on

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Guest post by Rob

I decided the following comment from one of my readers deserved a post of its own:

“There is a wider issue that no-one is picking up on. To get the UK’s CO2 emissions down, the onus is going to fall on the householder, not road traffic (how dare anyone interfere with our right to wheels!), not air travel (I WANT my annual holiday!), not industry (UK has to be competitive, unlimited growth, city bonuses).

99.9% of UK housing stock is already built, and to the lowest standards the building industry can get away with. Even new houses are poorly designed (poor detailing on insulation/airtightness, no microrenewables, poor design re solar gain, too many ensuites, no easily accessible central services, no peripheral cool food storage).

Faced with accelerating CO2 emissions, and genuinely scared of what climate change may bring, the government/insurance industry/media have promoted micro-renewable energy generation without realising that

1) they are of no use unless the house is thoroughly insulated, and
2) because sun, wind etc do not generate electricity/heat at convenient times, hence the power source must be linked to the grid, and the householder paid (meter driven in reverse) at a rate to make it worthwhile.

But first, to retrofit insulation, and install most micro-renewables is destructive and very expensive. To rub salt in, and this is my main point, YOU PAY 15% TAX (SOON TO BE 20%) ON YOUR BUILDERS TIME, ON THE INSULATING MATERIALS, ON EXCAVATING, PIPEWORK AND EVERYTHING REQUIRED TO GET YOUR HOUSE BACK TO NORMAL!

For most people, if your job and life are uncertain, if you may move house, then the disruption and expense are not worthwhile. The payback time of most microrenewable equipment, alone, is measured in decades.

We have to insulate below solid and suspended timber floors, take up and insulate under flat roof, relocate and replace oil boiler with biomass boiler, and apart from a grant for the boiler, we have to pay (2010 onwards) 20% tax to HMRC. on all labour and costs – where is the logic in that, and should we bother?

It’s illuminating that most MPs expenses claims were for tarty makeovers rather than, say for dry lining their entire house and installing a ground-source heat pump! Shows how much they understand the problem of retro-insulating the UK’s housing stock!

This window scrappage idea is just one small part of an impasse we are all in. What next for scrappage? In logical order of emissions/heat loss we should then have a roof scrappage scheme, then walls, doors, floors, boilers … Firstly, building materials related to energy conservation must be zero-VAT rated.”

  • Sponsors

  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
© 2010 Renegade Conservatory Guy