I am writing to support Ian Macpherson’s letter (27 October, page 34).

My firm manufactures and distributes domestic ventilation products and, in the last couple of months, we’ve been affected by the government’s U-turn on building regulations for trickle ventilators. Although the final outcome causes us concern, we’re more worried about the method of approach.

The Part F document revision passed through almost three years of consultations, drafts and assessments before being released, months after the anticipated date. This changing state of affairs, with no fixed completion date, put a strain on all of us. Contentious changes five months after publication have left us totally bewildered.

Many suppliers like ourselves, had business strategies partly “under starter’s orders” until early in the year, and waited until the new Part F was published before fully implementing them. Since then, time and money have been invested in products that suit the regulations,and a good proportion of them have been wasted.

Suppliers are not alone – academic bodies have spent valuable resources writing and printing support material for the document, all of which now require amendment. Anyone who has communicated about Part F since April must now re-educate their contacts.

Delay, indecision and change have heaped enormous costs on the industry. UK industry has a difficult enough job remaining competitive without additional costs. Lessons should be learned from this debacle.

David Ruffell, chief executive, Titon