ASA Adjudication on KDB Insulation Ltd

Ad

A leaflet for an insulation product called Airflex included descriptions of different types of installations and specific recommendations for the product. The ad featured installation diagrams headed "GABLE DETAIL ABOVE RAFTER WITH ADDITIONAL INSULATION" and "GABLE DETAIL BELOW RAFTER WITH MINERAL WOOL". Below each diagram was a box with the heading "Thermal Efficienty" [sic] and the following formula inside: "U value = 0.2 W/m2K; Airflex + 120mmλ = 0.032 additional insulation; or Airflex + 70mmλ = 0.023 PUR".

Issue

Hunt Technology Ltd challenged whether the thermal efficiency formula stated in the ad was misleading and could be substantiated, because they believed the product would need to be combined with 100 mm of PIR rigid board, rather than 70 mm, in order to achieve the U value of 0.2 W/m2K stated in the ad.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

KDB Insulation Ltd (KDB) explained that the diagrams in the ad were the same as on their British Board of Agrment  (BBA) certificate, and that the calculations were achieved by using BuildDesk software. They said it was well known that installers and architects had to make thermal calculations on a case by case basis in order to confirm that they complied with building regulations. KDB provided copies of the BBA certificate for Airflex, their BuildDesk calculations and fitting instructions for Airflex.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA took expert advice.

We understood from our expert that the U-value measured the degree of insulation of a building component, and represented the heat loss through one square metre for a 1 degreeC temperature difference between the inside and outside air; a poorly insulated wall or roof would have a high U-value, a well insulated one a low U-value. We also understood that the Building Research Establishment's (BRE) U-value calculator (which was based on the British Standard for U-value calculations, BS EN ISO 6946:2007) and the BRE Conventions for U-value Calculations guide, were referenced in Building Regulations as providing approved U-value calculations. Also, that other software packages, such as BuildDesk, that implemented the BS EN ISO 6946:2007 calculations, were available.

We noted that the ad featured diagrams of two cross sections of roofs, with Airflex added above and below the rafters with other insulation layers, and stated that each would achieve a U-value of 0.2 W/m2K if specified thicknesses of two different insulation materials were included alongside Airflex. However, we understood from the calculations provided by our expert, using the BRE calculator, that the U-values for the two diagrams shown were higher than 0.2 W/m2K, and that a greater thickness of insulation would be necessary to achieve that U-value.

We noted the BuildDesk calculations provided by KDB. However, we also noted our expert's view that there were a number of elements of those calculations that did not comply with the relevant British Standard or BRE Conventions for U-Value Calculations guide, or with the instructions in Airflex's BBA certificate.

We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)