A friend of mine moved into a new build house a couple of weeks ago and, being the hardware nut that I am, I couldn’t help but take a close look at what had been fitted to the windows and doors. After all, one of the big attractions of the new house was that it would be safe and secure for his family.
Imagine my surprise then when I realised that not one of the windows adhered to ADQ – despite the fact that it has been three whole years since ADQ became mandatory Continue reading…
Secured by Design has just announced that as of 1 October it will only be accepting PAS24:2016 accreditation on its new developments.
By then, it will of course have given the industry more than 2 years to get its act together on the replacement for PAS24:2012, and allowed time for the test houses to get their UKAS accreditation in place and for fabricators to get their Continue reading…
I think Mike Derham, Chairman of Mighton Products, has been doing a great job highlighting the lack of a coherent campaign in the UK to prevent young children falling from windows.
He has pointed out that, in the US, there is an ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standard which helps prevents falls, educates carers about window safety and defines standards for safety devices, but that nothing directly comparable exists over here. Continue reading…
I’ve been writing this column in Glass News for nearly five years now, and during that time I think I’ve made it quite clear just how committed I am to promoting best practice in hardware design and installation, and particularly how much I believe in robust and transparent third party testing and auditing of products.
I was pleased then to see the editorial and advert from Siegenia which featured in the March issue stressing the need for hardware fitted in the UK to be fully independently tested. Since Mila is Siegenia’s largest UK distributor, it’s particularly heartening to read Adrian Vickers supporting my view Continue reading…
When a new hardware product is launched, customers have every right to expect that it will have been fully tested to the very latest security and performance standard – that’s standard practice across the industry.
What about a product which has been out in the market for several years though and which was tested to an earlier version of the standard? Is it acceptable for manufacturers to continue to claim compliance for that product when the requirements of the standard have since changed, even if the product is marked and dated?
Although it’s technically within the rules, I would argue that it is misleading customers somewhat. It frustrates me when I see products from some of Mila’s competitors which are being sold with TS007 accreditation, for example, when in reality they have not been accredited to the most up to date 2015 version of the test.
That surely misleads trade buyers and puts them in an impossible position when they are selling on to the retail market and promoting the benefits of the security accreditation to householders. Continue reading…
Although Building Regulations are notoriously difficult to read, I think there’s a fairly widespread understanding of Approved Doc M across this industry, and how it applies to the door sector in particular. Essentially, it is all about ensuring that there is an ‘accessible threshold’ installed on the principle entrance doorway and all other external doors, including those to and from a private garden, in a new build property or a building which is undergoing material conversion or alteration.
It’s an integral part of the Lifetime Homes standard, which has the very laudable aim of making all new homes accessible to the disabled and those with restricted mobility. Continue reading…
UK
