Any help will be appreciated.

Got a combination boiler,it started leaking all over the place last
night.

Got an emergency plumber in today at £57 / half hour plus VAT.

He told me it's the heat exchanger ( will confirm this with Ideal
Boilers tomorrow) although he didn't pinpoint the leak.

He's quoting £1500 all in for a new boiler.

Our house is a small 3 bedroom end terrace - the current boiler size
is 90,000 Btu/h and the one he recommended is exactly the same size,
this is despite telling him we are extending next year and would need
a bigger boiler.

So.......any recommendations? Should I get a new boiler now (condensor
or combi) or should I get a new heat exchanger fitted as we'll be
extending next year and will have to get a new boiler anyway?

Thanx, Lod

On 7 Dec 2003 14:51:01 -0800, (lodtop) wrote:

Any help will be appreciated.

Got a combination boiler,it started leaking all over the place last
night.

Got an emergency plumber in today at £57 / half hour plus VAT.

He told me it's the heat exchanger ( will confirm this with Ideal
Boilers tomorrow) although he didn't pinpoint the leak.

He's quoting £1500 all in for a new boiler.

Our house is a small 3 bedroom end terrace - the current boiler size
is 90,000 Btu/h and the one he recommended is exactly the same size,
this is despite telling him we are extending next year and would need
a bigger boiler.

Not necessarily.

BTUs are a deprecated unit, but 90,000 of them equates to 26kW which
is a fairly powerful boiler for a small house.

Having said that, if it is an older property with solid brick walls
with no cavity or no cavity insulation, it may be close to its limit.
The only way that you could tell properly is by calculating the heat
losses and doing so properly. For an older property, by far the
largest losses are through the walls so it is important to check
properly and not rely on some plumber looking around and guessing with
a ready reckoner. The radiator manufacturers have programs on their
web sites to help calculate the heat losses. All you have to do is
measure the surfaces (floors, walls, windows) and plug them into the
program, room by room, choosing the correct material for each surface.
You'll then get a total heat loss for the property. Add about 20%
to this for boiler sizing.

When you add an extension, modern building regulations are going to
require cavity walls and double glazing and the heat losses in this
part are going to be a lot less (could be only a quarter) of the
equivalent size of existing house.




So.......any recommendations? Should I get a new boiler now (condensor
or combi) or should I get a new heat exchanger fitted as we'll be
extending next year and will have to get a new boiler anyway?

I would draw a line under the existing boiler and get a new one.
Generally the heat exchanger is one of the most expensive parts.

Are you happy with the hot water performance of the combi? If not,
and the water flow is adequate you could go for a larger one with more
output to hot water.

Modern condensing boilers (and you can get condensing combi boilers)
tend to have control systems which result in the boiler running at a
lower than full output (called modulation) to the heating when there
is less demand on a warmer day. For the hot water, and when required
for the heating, it will run at full power.

So it doesn't matter if you oversize the boiler for heating purposes
particularly. You could go for a 30-35kW boiler for example.

Whether the £1500 is a good price depends on what you would be
getting. It's worth spending a bit more for a decent condensing
product like Vaillant or others with a stainless steel heat exchanger
since these have a longer lifetime than most other materials.
You would most likely not get one of those fitted for £1500 though,


Certainly it is worth going for a condensing model as you'll shave
approx 25% or so off of your energy consumption if the existing boiler
is a fairly old type. Do make sure that the system is properly
flushed and dosed with corrosion inhibitor as this may have been a
contributing factor to the demise of your existing boiler.

Also, if you do have an older property, and it is practical, consider
insulating the insides of the outside walls. Something like 50mm
Celotex sheet would have an enormous difference with solid walls.








Thanx, Lod

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , lodtop
writes

Got a combination boiler,it started leaking all over the place last
night.

Our house is a small 3 bedroom end terrace - the current boiler size
is 90,000 Btu/h and the one he recommended is exactly the same size,
this is despite telling him we are extending next year and would need
a bigger boiler.

So.......any recommendations? Should I get a new boiler now (condensor
or combi) or should I get a new heat exchanger fitted as we'll be
extending next year and will have to get a new boiler anyway?

Are you sure that you would need a bigger boiler? Combi's often have
spare heating capacity as they have to have the output to heat the DHW
anyway. A 3 bed terrace probably only needs around 50,000 BTU

We have a '100,000' Btu/h combi in and extended (extra room and bigger
kitchen) 3 bed 1930's semi. The old boiler was IIRC 50-60,000 BTU. The
heating output of Combis is adjustable. ISTR that when I installed our
combi (as part of an extended CH system) I set the heating output to
somewhere in the 60-70,000 range.

So I'd want to check if I really did need a bigger boiler first - do
some heat loss calc's on the projected extended house. Myson used to
have a free heat loss calculator to download, dunno if they still do.

However, if for whatever reason you would need to change the boiler next
year then renewing the heat exchanger doesn't seem worth it, given that
it's an expensive job.
--
Chris French, Leeds

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:34:48 +0000, chris French
wrote:


So I'd want to check if I really did need a bigger boiler first - do
some heat loss calc's on the projected extended house. Myson used to
have a free heat loss calculator to download, dunno if they still do.

Yes they do, but their web site is under construction at the moment
and it isn't there..

I have a copy that I can email if anybody needs it.......



However, if for whatever reason you would need to change the boiler next
year then renewing the heat exchanger doesn't seem worth it, given that
it's an expensive job.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Thanks for the advice, might stick with this one and get a new heat exchanger.

Lod

Cheers if you could send it to us Andy.

When you add an extension, modern building regulations are going
to require cavity walls and double glazing and the heat losses
in this part are going to be a lot less (could be only a quarter)
of the equivalent size of existing house.

Indeed, I've heard of cases where adding a two storey extension has actually
resulted in reduced calculated heat losses from the house. This is because
an uninsulated solid wall was appended by the heavily insulated 2 storey
extension, which had considerably lower heat loss than the original wall,
despite have many times the surface area.

Christian.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:32:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

When you add an extension, modern building regulations are going
to require cavity walls and double glazing and the heat losses
in this part are going to be a lot less (could be only a quarter)
of the equivalent size of existing house.

Indeed, I've heard of cases where adding a two storey extension has actually
resulted in reduced calculated heat losses from the house. This is because
an uninsulated solid wall was appended by the heavily insulated 2 storey
extension, which had considerably lower heat loss than the original wall,
despite have many times the surface area.

Christian.


The area doesn't need to be much for there to be an improvement.

The U value of a plastered solid double brick wall is about 2 W/m^2.K

For a new wall it's 0.35 or 0.25, so almost a 10:1 difference.

For old single glazed windows the improvement with double glazed, low
emissivity glass is about 2.5:1, although the areas are smaller of
course.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
When you add an extension, modern building regulations are going
to require cavity walls and double glazing and the heat losses
in this part are going to be a lot less (could be only a quarter)
of the equivalent size of existing house.

Indeed, I've heard of cases where adding a two storey extension has
actually
resulted in reduced calculated heat losses from the house. This is because
an uninsulated solid wall was appended by the heavily insulated 2 storey
extension, which had considerably lower heat loss than the original wall,
despite have many times the surface area.

The old external uninsulated solid wall then becomes internal with a lot of
thermal mass. This, once charged with heat reduces the peaks of heat
demand.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"lodtop" wrote in message
om...
Thanks for the advice, might stick with this one and get a new heat
exchanger.

What make combi?

If going for a new one get a high flowrate and pay the extra. You will not
regret it.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:31:34 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:32:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

When you add an extension, modern building regulations are going
to require cavity walls and double glazing and the heat losses
in this part are going to be a lot less (could be only a quarter)
of the equivalent size of existing house.

Indeed, I've heard of cases where adding a two storey extension has actually
resulted in reduced calculated heat losses from the house. This is because
an uninsulated solid wall was appended by the heavily insulated 2 storey
extension, which had considerably lower heat loss than the original wall,
despite have many times the surface area.

Christian.


The area doesn't need to be much for there to be an improvement.

The U value of a plastered solid double brick wall is about 2 W/m^2.K

For a new wall it's 0.35 or 0.25, so almost a 10:1 difference.

For old single glazed windows the improvement with double glazed, low
emissivity glass is about 2.5:1, although the areas are smaller of
course.

Not to mention the much reduced air changes which accounts for significant
part of the total heating demand.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

In article , IMM
writes

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.net...
When you add an extension, modern building regulations are going
to require cavity walls and double glazing and the heat losses
in this part are going to be a lot less (could be only a quarter)
of the equivalent size of existing house.

Indeed, I've heard of cases where adding a two storey extension has
actually
resulted in reduced calculated heat losses from the house. This is because
an uninsulated solid wall was appended by the heavily insulated 2 storey
extension, which had considerably lower heat loss than the original wall,
despite have many times the surface area.

The old external uninsulated solid wall then becomes internal with a lot of
thermal mass. This, once charged with heat reduces the peaks of heat
demand.
Unless the extension has a lower roof pitch than the original (using
dormer windows for the upstairs to maintain the same cill height) which
means you have a nasty cold radiator where by part of the original gable
wall is exposed but connected the rest of it which is now within the
house.

PS In all the house makeover, 'get rich quick' etc program, how come I
never hear Ms Beeny and others mentioning the magical word
'insulation' to make the property more comfortable?. Lets face it, if
you are replastering the walls, why not put up insulated PB and skim
that instead ?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003



--
Andrew

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:31:34 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:32:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

When you add an extension, modern building regulations are going
to require cavity walls and double glazing and the heat losses
in this part are going to be a lot less (could be only a quarter)
of the equivalent size of existing house.

Indeed, I've heard of cases where adding a two storey extension has
actually
resulted in reduced calculated heat losses from the house. This is
because
an uninsulated solid wall was appended by the heavily insulated 2 storey
extension, which had considerably lower heat loss than the original
wall,
despite have many times the surface area.

Christian.


The area doesn't need to be much for there to be an improvement.

The U value of a plastered solid double brick wall is about 2 W/m^2.K

For a new wall it's 0.35 or 0.25, so almost a 10:1 difference.

For old single glazed windows the improvement with double glazed, low
emissivity glass is about 2.5:1, although the areas are smaller of
course.

Not to mention the much reduced air changes which accounts for significant
part of the total heating demand.

Very true. Air leakages account for 42% of heat loss in a modern house. An
old Victorian solid walled house with modern sealed double glazed windows
and doors is much tighter than the modern equivalent, which, with cavity
walls leaks far more. A prime leakage point is the window reveals and where
the joists penetrate the inner wall. This should be fully sealed up, but
never is.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.net...
When you add an extension, modern building regulations are going
to require cavity walls and double glazing and the heat losses
in this part are going to be a lot less (could be only a quarter)
of the equivalent size of existing house.

Indeed, I've heard of cases where adding a two storey extension has
actually
resulted in reduced calculated heat losses from the house. This is
because
an uninsulated solid wall was appended by the heavily insulated 2
storey
extension, which had considerably lower heat loss than the original
wall,
despite have many times the surface area.

The old external uninsulated solid wall then becomes internal with a lot
of
thermal mass. This, once charged with heat reduces the peaks of heat
demand.
Unless the extension has a lower roof pitch than the original (using
dormer windows for the upstairs to maintain the same cill height) which
means you have a nasty cold radiator where by part of the original gable
wall is exposed but connected the rest of it which is now within the
house.

PS In all the house makeover, 'get rich quick' etc program, how come I
never hear Ms Beeny and others mentioning the magical word
'insulation' to make the property more comfortable?. Lets face it, if
you are replastering the walls, why not put up insulated PB and skim
that instead ?

Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows about kitchens
and paint colours, that's all. A well insulated house is far more
attractive to a buyer.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:09:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows about kitchens
and paint colours, that's all. A well insulated house is far more
attractive to a buyer.


I think that that depends on the buyer. I have not seen many estate
agent's particulars on properties emphasising insulation. I've seen
plenty extolling the virtues of a Smallbone kitchen. Whether that
is right or wrong or not is one thing, but it would appear that they
find that their customers find fixtures and fittings important as
purchasing criteria.


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:09:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows about kitchens
and paint colours, that's all. A well insulated house is far more
attractive to a buyer.


I think that that depends on the buyer. I have not seen many estate
agent's particulars on properties emphasising insulation. I've seen
plenty extolling the virtues of a Smallbone kitchen. Whether that
is right or wrong or not is one thing, but it would appear that they
find that their customers find fixtures and fittings important as
purchasing criteria.

Tell them the bills are £50-100 a year and see their ears prick up.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:40:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:09:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows about kitchens
and paint colours, that's all. A well insulated house is far more
attractive to a buyer.


I think that that depends on the buyer. I have not seen many estate
agent's particulars on properties emphasising insulation. I've seen
plenty extolling the virtues of a Smallbone kitchen. Whether that
is right or wrong or not is one thing, but it would appear that they
find that their customers find fixtures and fittings important as
purchasing criteria.

Tell them the bills are £50-100 a year and see their ears prick up.






---
I don't know of any estate agents that are likely to do that.
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andrew" wrote
| PS In all the house makeover, 'get rich quick' etc program,
| how come I never hear Ms Beeny and others mentioning the
| magical word 'insulation' to make the property more
| comfortable?. Lets face it, if you are replastering the
| walls, why not put up insulated PB and skim that instead ?

Because it adds to the costs and produces no corresponding increase in sale
price. This is property development, ie tart it up cheap and sell quick.
Expenditure goes on what the customer sees and will pay for, not on 'good'
things that are hidden from view. There is usually not even the requirement
of Building Regs to put in insulation, as there is with new build.

Owain

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:40:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:09:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows about
kitchens
and paint colours, that's all. A well insulated house is far more
attractive to a buyer.

I think that that depends on the buyer. I have not seen many estate
agent's particulars on properties emphasising insulation. I've seen
plenty extolling the virtues of a Smallbone kitchen. Whether that
is right or wrong or not is one thing, but it would appear that they
find that their customers find fixtures and fittings important as
purchasing criteria.

Tell them the bills are £50-100 a year and see their ears prick up.

I don't know of any estate agents that are likely to do that.

The client instructs the estate agent and what points to highlight. Most
agents are technically brain dead. There is a famous case in Milton Keynes,
when one of the country's first superinsulated houses went up for sale in
Energy Park. The stupid agent dropped the price by 2.5K as it never had a
heating system. He had to be taken to one side and have it explained to
him, even then he couldn't see it. Duh!

If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher price.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"IMM" wrote
| Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows
| about kitchens and paint colours, that's all. A well
| insulated house is far more attractive to a buyer.

Have you read her Property Ladder book?

I was reading part of it in WHSmiths yesterday and she has an 'interesting'
viewpoint of the relative merits of combi boilers and instant electric
showers.

Owain

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:58:01 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:40:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:09:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows about
kitchens
and paint colours, that's all. A well insulated house is far more
attractive to a buyer.

I think that that depends on the buyer. I have not seen many estate
agent's particulars on properties emphasising insulation. I've seen
plenty extolling the virtues of a Smallbone kitchen. Whether that
is right or wrong or not is one thing, but it would appear that they
find that their customers find fixtures and fittings important as
purchasing criteria.

Tell them the bills are £50-100 a year and see their ears prick up.

I don't know of any estate agents that are likely to do that.

The client instructs the estate agent and what points to highlight. Most
agents are technically brain dead. There is a famous case in Milton Keynes,
when one of the country's first superinsulated houses went up for sale in
Energy Park. The stupid agent dropped the price by 2.5K as it never had a
heating system. He had to be taken to one side and have it explained to
him, even then he couldn't see it. Duh!

This was part of my point.

If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher price.


The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

It's not that marketable because energy is still cheap



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:58:01 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:40:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:09:49 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows about
kitchens
and paint colours, that's all. A well insulated house is far more
attractive to a buyer.

I think that that depends on the buyer. I have not seen many
estate
agent's particulars on properties emphasising insulation. I've
seen
plenty extolling the virtues of a Smallbone kitchen. Whether
that
is right or wrong or not is one thing, but it would appear that they
find that their customers find fixtures and fittings important as
purchasing criteria.

Tell them the bills are £50-100 a year and see their ears prick up.

I don't know of any estate agents that are likely to do that.

The client instructs the estate agent and what points to highlight. Most
agents are technically brain dead. There is a famous case in Milton
Keynes,
when one of the country's first superinsulated houses went up for sale in
Energy Park. The stupid agent dropped the price by 2.5K as it never had
a
heating system. He had to be taken to one side and have it explained to
him, even then he couldn't see it. Duh!

This was part of my point.

That was in the 1980s.

If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher
price.

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

Most purchasers are not that stupid. In Nottinghamshire, a developer built
low energy homes. He commands a higher price for them and they do go for
more than the colder ones around, and certainly sell quicker.

Any decent estate agent will tell you that a house with low energy bills and
eco credentials commands more and sell very quick. Public awareness is much
greater now, after decades of headlines of environmental concerns, high and
volatile fuel prices, etc.

It's not that marketable because energy is still cheap



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On 11 Dec 2003 12:25:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

[42 lines snipped]

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

It's not that marketable because energy is still cheap

It is? Gulp.

Relatively, and not to the point of pain for the average punter.

If it were, everybody would be fitting condensing boilers and double
glazing and we wouldn't need legislation to encourage better
insulation.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:27:51 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




That was in the 1980s.

From what I have seen, it's still true today.



If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher
price.

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

Most purchasers are not that stupid. In Nottinghamshire, a developer built
low energy homes. He commands a higher price for them and they do go for
more than the colder ones around, and certainly sell quicker.

Any decent estate agent will tell you that a house with low energy bills and
eco credentials commands more and sell very quick. Public awareness is much
greater now, after decades of headlines of environmental concerns, high and
volatile fuel prices, etc.

They sell to some people who have that as a concern on their agenda
for either economic or idealistic reasons.

It is a long way down the list compared with factors like location,
size, room layouts etc. for most people..

If energy saving, right or wrong were a big issue for most people,
then older properites wouldn't sell, and they do.......




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:

If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher price.

The one with the nicer kitchen.
--
Selah

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:27:51 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




That was in the 1980s.

From what I have seen, it's still true today.



If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which
one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher
price.

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

Most purchasers are not that stupid. In Nottinghamshire, a developer
built
low energy homes. He commands a higher price for them and they do go for
more than the colder ones around, and certainly sell quicker.

Any decent estate agent will tell you that a house with low energy bills
and
eco credentials commands more and sell very quick. Public awareness is
much
greater now, after decades of headlines of environmental concerns, high
and
volatile fuel prices, etc.

They sell to some people who have that as a concern on their agenda
for either economic or idealistic reasons.

There are millions of these people now, and I would say they are in the
majority.

It is a long way down the list compared with factors like location,
size, room layouts etc. for most people..

A house has to suit the purpose: size, etc. Location is important: schools,
shops, etc. Its no good have a family and living in a 100% eco house in the
middle of nowhere. When all prime points are equal the eco house commands
more attention and sells quicker and for more.

If energy saving, right or wrong
were a big issue for most people,
then older properites wouldn't sell,
and they do.......

Because we don't build enough new houses in the UK. In 2000, we built twice
as many homes as Southern Ireland (pop approx 3.3 million, while the UK is
approx 60 million) Totally pathetic, and no wonder two jags castigated the
building industry and took control and forced them into the 20th century
(having them in the 21st century is too much to ask).

In areas where they are plentiful,new home the newer homes are more in
demand because of the low fuels bills and more comfortable environment
inside. I was reading that Milton Keynes is a prime example. MK has older
house in it, surprise,surprise: Bletchley, Wolverton, etc. The newer homes
in good locations are generally preferred to the 1920-30s homes in good
locations.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 11 Dec 2003 12:25:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

[42 lines snipped]

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

It's not that marketable because energy is still cheap

It is? Gulp.

Relatively, and not to the point of pain for the average punter.

If it were, everybody would be
fitting condensing boilers and double
glazing

They are!! Try selling a house without double glazing. Relatives of mine
have a 20 year old detached 4 bed, two bathroom house. Gas bills were
approx £600-650 per year. That IS NOT cheap. It might be for you, but not
to the average person on the average salary. I zoned up the house to
upstairs and down, installed a condensing boiler, they put extra lagging in
the loft and installed double glazing (the old windows were ugly and shot
anyway). The bills are now half that, maybe less. The neighbours heard of
it and many are now doing similar.

They are all on water meters and many now have low flush cisterns fitted,
with aerated taps and water butts etc. Why? Because water is not cheap
either, so they want to keep those bills down too.

and we wouldn't need legislation to encourage better
insulation.

Legislation is to drag the building industry out of the 19th century.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Stephen Gower" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

If there are two well appointed identical houses in the same road, and
one
has heating bills of 500-600 a year and one only £50-100, guess which one
would attract most attention, sell very quickly and command a higher
price.

The one with the nicer kitchen.

You didn't read! It said "two well appointed identical houses in the same
road".

A nice kitchen is over stated. A lot of people assess that a new kitchen is
going to cost 6-10K, or whatever, so are prepared to fit their own in after
buying, to their own design and all brand new, if the rest of the prime
points of a house are attractive.

I personally would rather have a sound house with tatty bathrooms and
kitchen and replace these, as soon as moving in. Nothing worse than a tatty
bathroom and kitchen that someone else has used for years.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote
| Ms Beeny know anything about building? Please! She knows
| about kitchens and paint colours, that's all. A well
| insulated house is far more attractive to a buyer.

Have you read her Property Ladder book?

I thumbed it onece. Seemed overpriced and told me nothing I didn't already
know

I was reading part of it in WHSmiths yesterday and she has an
'interesting'
viewpoint of the relative merits of combi boilers and instant electric
showers.

What might they be?



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"IMM" wrote
| "Owain" wrote
| Have you read her Property Ladder book?
| I was reading part of it in WHSmiths yesterday and she has an
| 'interesting' viewpoint of the relative merits of combi boilers
| and instant electric showers.
| What might they be?

AIUI her point was that it was best to install instant electric because
combi's couldn't deliver enough hot water for a shower.

I might have got it wrong, I was only thumbing through it too.

Owain

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:15:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Dec 2003 12:25:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

[42 lines snipped]

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

It's not that marketable because energy is still cheap

It is? Gulp.

Relatively, and not to the point of pain for the average punter.

If it were, everybody would be
fitting condensing boilers and double
glazing

They are!! Try selling a house without double glazing.

I just did, and for a higher price than one close by with double
glazing that has been on the market for weeks.. The one that I
sold had a better kitchen and a better posiiton.

Relatives of mine
have a 20 year old detached 4 bed, two bathroom house. Gas bills were
approx £600-650 per year. That IS NOT cheap. It might be for you, but not
to the average person on the average salary. I zoned up the house to
upstairs and down, installed a condensing boiler, they put extra lagging in
the loft and installed double glazing (the old windows were ugly and shot
anyway). The bills are now half that, maybe less. The neighbours heard of
it and many are now doing similar.

They are all on water meters and many now have low flush cisterns fitted,
with aerated taps and water butts etc. Why? Because water is not cheap
either, so they want to keep those bills down too.

That's all very nice, and I don't disagree with doing these things.
I simply don't believe that they are a big seller. Yet.




and we wouldn't need legislation to encourage better
insulation.

Legislation is to drag the building industry out of the 19th century.

That's a separate issue.



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 11 Dec 2003 13:18:02 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:
On 11 Dec 2003 12:25:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

[42 lines snipped]

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

It's not that marketable because energy is still cheap

It is? Gulp.

Relatively, and not to the point of pain for the average punter.

Ah, so once again those with a little nous have to suffer for the average thicko?

Sigh.


ALways the case, though, isn't it......?
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:03:53 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


There are millions of these people now, and I would say they are in the
majority.

Millions possibly. Majority, I think not.



It is a long way down the list compared with factors like location,
size, room layouts etc. for most people..

A house has to suit the purpose: size, etc. Location is important: schools,
shops, etc. Its no good have a family and living in a 100% eco house in the
middle of nowhere. When all prime points are equal the eco house commands
more attention and sells quicker and for more.

Not from my recent experience of the market.



If energy saving, right or wrong
were a big issue for most people,
then older properites wouldn't sell,
and they do.......

Because we don't build enough new houses in the UK. In 2000, we built twice
as many homes as Southern Ireland (pop approx 3.3 million, while the UK is
approx 60 million) Totally pathetic, and no wonder two jags castigated the
building industry and took control and forced them into the 20th century

Maybe that should happen to two jags himself.... (Oh, sorry,
*castigated* ... :-) )



In areas where they are plentiful,new home the newer homes are more in
demand because of the low fuels bills and more comfortable environment
inside. I was reading that Milton Keynes is a prime example. MK has older
house in it, surprise,surprise: Bletchley, Wolverton, etc. The newer homes
in good locations are generally preferred to the 1920-30s homes in good
locations.


Milton Keynes isn't a prime example of anything that I would consider
positive. It has great views, though. In the rear view mirror....






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:03:53 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


There are millions of these people now, and I would say they are in the
majority.

Millions possibly. Majority, I think not.



It is a long way down the list compared with factors like location,
size, room layouts etc. for most people..

A house has to suit the purpose: size, etc. Location is important:
schools,
shops, etc. Its no good have a family and living in a 100% eco house in
the
middle of nowhere. When all prime points are equal the eco house
commands
more attention and sells quicker and for more.

Not from my recent experience of the market.

What might they be? How eco homes did you see and visit?

If energy saving, right or wrong
were a big issue for most people,
then older properites wouldn't sell,
and they do.......

Because we don't build enough new houses in the UK. In 2000, we built
twice
as many homes as Southern Ireland (pop approx 3.3 million, while the UK
is
approx 60 million) Totally pathetic, and no wonder two jags castigated
the
building industry and took control and forced them into the 20th century

Maybe that should happen to two jags himself.... (Oh, sorry,
*castigated* ... :-) )

Andy , you are so funny. All that Tory indoctrination coming out. I like
Jonny Left Hook.

In areas where they are plentiful,new home the newer homes are more in
demand because of the low fuels bills and more comfortable environment
inside. I was reading that Milton Keynes is a prime example. MK has
older
house in it, surprise,surprise: Bletchley, Wolverton, etc. The newer
homes
in good locations are generally preferred to the 1920-30s homes in good
locations.

Milton Keynes isn't a prime example

It is. The population ismm,ixed from many parts of the country, although
primarily south east.

of anything that I would consider
positive. It has great views, though.
In the rear view mirror....

I'm sure its forward looking inhabitants would love to see your exhaust
puffs as you leave quickly.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:15:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Dec 2003 12:25:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

[42 lines snipped]

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

It's not that marketable because energy is still cheap

It is? Gulp.

Relatively, and not to the point of pain for the average punter.

If it were, everybody would be
fitting condensing boilers and double
glazing

They are!! Try selling a house without double glazing.

I just did, and for a higher price than one close by with double
glazing that has been on the market for weeks.. The one that I
sold had a better kitchen and a better posiiton.

Relatives of mine
have a 20 year old detached 4 bed, two bathroom house. Gas bills were
approx £600-650 per year. That IS NOT cheap. It might be for you, but
not
to the average person on the average salary. I zoned up the house to
upstairs and down, installed a condensing boiler, they put extra lagging
in
the loft and installed double glazing (the old windows were ugly and shot
anyway). The bills are now half that, maybe less. The neighbours heard
of
it and many are now doing similar.

They are all on water meters and many now have low flush cisterns fitted,
with aerated taps and water butts etc. Why? Because water is not cheap
either, so they want to keep those bills down too.

That's all very nice, and I don't disagree with doing these things.
I simply don't believe that they are a big seller. Yet.

It is getting that way, that is the point, and that is for certain. The
insulation regs are getting higher, boiler efficiency is getting higher, all
pushed by Two Jags (God bless his left hook). Once this becomes the
standard then it drags the less old homes up, as it did with double glazing,
insulation in lofts, high efficiency heating. Then it will be the norm and
anything less will sell for less and not even be looked at. It is all
coming soon, very soon.

Worst case example. Take a bog standard, structurally sound, in excellent
order 3 bed never been modernised in any way 1930s detached house, with
original kitchen, coal fires, doors, bathroom, etc, and NO insulation in the
loft. See how many people would interested to buy it at full price, the
same price as a new house in insulation to current building regs and high
efficeint heating system. NONE at all. Some will want a knock done price
to "renovate" it, to modern specs. Comfort conditions and expectations are
rising and expectations of low running cost are too. The point? Improved
comfort and running costs "do impact".

and we wouldn't need legislation to encourage better
insulation.

Legislation is to drag the building industry out of the 19th century.

That's a separate issue.

But still related.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 11 Dec 2003 13:18:02 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:
On 11 Dec 2003 12:25:47 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:

[42 lines snipped]

The other was that most purchasers are brain dead as well.

You and I might think that energy saving is important, but most
purchasers don't.

It's not that marketable because energy is still cheap

It is? Gulp.

Relatively, and not to the point of pain for the average punter.

Ah, so once again those with a little nous have to suffer for the average
thicko?

Sigh.

ALways the case, though, isn't it......?

Well Andy, can't you stop being thick then? ;-)


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

IMM wrote:
"Stephen Gower" wrote
IMM wrote:

guess which one would attract most attention, sell very quickly
and command a higher price.

The one with the nicer kitchen.

You didn't read! It said "two well appointed identical houses in the same
road".

Yes, John, if there were absolutly no other factors, then the
insulation would make a difference to the sale.

Outside of this hypothetic world (where there are two identical
properties: same layout, same decoration, same seller, same agent,
but with different insulation) insulation is not a very important
factor in whether a house sells, or for how much.
--
Selah

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:15:38 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It is getting that way, that is the point, and that is for certain. The
insulation regs are getting higher, boiler efficiency is getting higher, all
pushed by Two Jags (God bless his left hook). Once this becomes the
standard then it drags the less old homes up, as it did with double glazing,
insulation in lofts, high efficiency heating. Then it will be the norm and
anything less will sell for less and not even be looked at. It is all
coming soon, very soon.

Worst case example. Take a bog standard, structurally sound, in excellent
order 3 bed never been modernised in any way 1930s detached house, with
original kitchen, coal fires, doors, bathroom, etc, and NO insulation in the
loft. See how many people would interested to buy it at full price, the
same price as a new house in insulation to current building regs and high
efficeint heating system. NONE at all. Some will want a knock done price
to "renovate" it, to modern specs. Comfort conditions and expectations are
rising and expectations of low running cost are too. The point? Improved
comfort and running costs "do impact".

Certainly people will expect to buy a fixer-upper at a lower price,
but the renovation budget is going to go on structural issues, wiring,
a heating system if there wasn't one, new windows if the old ones are
beyond economic repair (not for insulation reasons), the bathroom, the
kitchen and decorating, and then maybe the garden.

Loft insulation may be done since it's easy and cheap, although not
the major loss of heat. Cavity insulation? probably not, yet that's
likely to be the largest heat loss.

I don't see lower energy costs as a major motivator at this point.




and we wouldn't need legislation to encourage better
insulation.

Legislation is to drag the building industry out of the 19th century.

That's a separate issue.

But still related.



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:02:48 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Not from my recent experience of the market.

What might they be? How eco homes did you see and visit?

I said that I sold a property easily vs. one with DG etc. that was not
in as good a position and did not have as nice a kitchen.
I said nothing about buying.

My comment was as anecdotal as yours.






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:15:38 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It is getting that way, that is the point, and that is for certain. The
insulation regs are getting higher, boiler efficiency is getting higher,
all
pushed by Two Jags (God bless his left hook). Once this becomes the
standard then it drags the less old homes up, as it did with double
glazing,
insulation in lofts, high efficiency heating. Then it will be the norm
and
anything less will sell for less and not even be looked at. It is all
coming soon, very soon.

Worst case example. Take a bog standard, structurally sound, in
excellent
order 3 bed never been modernised in any way 1930s detached house, with
original kitchen, coal fires, doors, bathroom, etc, and NO insulation in
the
loft. See how many people would interested to buy it at full price, the
same price as a new house in insulation to current building regs and high
efficeint heating system. NONE at all. Some will want a knock done
price
to "renovate" it, to modern specs. Comfort conditions and expectations
are
rising and expectations of low running cost are too. The point?
Improved
comfort and running costs "do impact".

Certainly people will expect to
buy a fixer-upper at a lower price,

This is not a do upper.

but the renovation budget is going to go on structural issues, wiring,
a heating system if there wasn't one, new windows if the old ones are
beyond economic repair (not for insulation reasons), the bathroom, the
kitchen and decorating, and then maybe the garden.

All the structure is fine. No dry rot, woindow fit amnd are wet painted. It
has running hot water, just put coal on the fire and you have hot water. It
has a sound strucuture and woodwork, doors, etc, bathroom kitchen with a
sink and built-in cupboards.

You said it! A house like that is not up people's expectations of comfort
and running costs.

Loft insulation may be done since it's easy and cheap, although not
the major loss of heat.

You what???? Do your calcs in a house with 300mm of loft insulation and
with none whatsoever. Then there is the intangible comfort conditions.
Well insulated house have less cold stops and are much more comfortable to
live in, in winter and summer.

Cavity insulation? probably not, yet that's
likely to be the largest heat loss.

I don't see lower energy costs as a major motivator at this point.

It is a major factor.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003