Legal experts are cautioning homeowners against the installation of spray foam loft insulation due to a surge in lenders refusing mortgages and the potential impact on property insurability.
The advisory, provided by law firm mfg Solicitors, highlights the importance of homeowners exploring alternative insulation methods to avoid potential financial setbacks and complications in property transactions.
Spray foam insulation, a chemical product applied using powered sprays that expands and solidifies, has two main types: open-cell, allowing moisture to escape, and close-cell, which reduces air circulation. In the case of close-cell insulation used in roofs and lofts, concerns arise as it can trap moisture around wooden joints, leading to rot.
Beverley Clinton, a legal assistant in the firm’s Residential Property Division, emphasised the challenges associated with removing this type of insulation, making it difficult for many mortgage providers and equity release companies to lend on properties containing it, even if installed by reputable firms. Surveyors are also increasingly vigilant, and insurance companies may refuse coverage for properties with this insulation.
This warning follows a concerning incident in Stoke-on-Trent where a couple lost nearly £11,000 in a spray foam insulation scam, rendering their house unsellable. The couple, Fiona and Andre Barton, paid £4,926 for spray foam loft installation following a cold call in December 2022. Six months later, as they attempted to sell their home, the buyers’ surveyor flagged the insulation, labelling homes with such insulation as “un-mortgageable.” The Bartons were compelled to engage a specialist removal company and incur significant costs, totalling £5,490.
Homeowners are urged to consider the potential consequences of spray foam insulation on property transactions, including difficulties in selling, remortgaging, or releasing equity. Ms Clinton added:
“Obviously due to cold weather and people trying to keep their homes warm to cut down heating bills, spray foam loft insulation is something people might well consider.
However, we have seen an increase in property sales falling through because of spray foam insulation and although it has been on a list of approved government measures for a number of years, the public should be aware of its long-term effect on their property and should be looking for an alternative.”
4 responses
We had Cisco Homes Ltd install spray foam insulation in 2019.
We had a survey done earlier this year as we are moving and discovered that the end rafters have rotted because they sprayed the membrane instead of installing boards.
The end result is £2500 to install, and £19,000 for removing it and a new roof.
Sorry but why isnt Cisco Homes responsable for that. ??? There has to be some of responsibility for this as the installer is supposed to have the expertise and the customer should bend to know this kinda of stuff. Hence the expensive price of installation.
i have had open cell foam installed since christmas due to a loft inspection conducted by aloft insulation company they found a high moisture content in the existing insulating materiajl i think was35 and advised that there was a risk of dry rot commencing and advised on open cell foam insulation being installed after installation a further reading was taken apperox 3 months after installation and found to be less than 10 on the moisture reader and therforethe timbers had dryed to an acceptable level i have received relevant documentation concerning installation eg 25 year warranty ect
however it was never explained to me before installation concerning problems with obtaining morgages an obtaining ecuity release and although i do not have any complaints concerning work on the installation i am fed up with rnegative responses to foam and i do not intend removing the foam has an editional expense could you give a time issue when these problems with foam are going to be resolved
When enquiring about legality of spray foam companies doing this, I was informed they are doing it according to Government guide lines , which are inadequate. That is a loop hole that allows this to continue. I am now at the stage of having it remove, will still paying for it to be put in. All in all approximately £ 5400 lost.
Feel very disgruntled that this is allowed to happen. The man on the street is being held to ransom.