Classify this please doubting myself

Post new thread

Currently reading:
Classify this please doubting myself

Discuss Classify this please doubting myself in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Riley

Riley

Super Moderator
S. Mod
Plumber
Gas Engineer
Subscribed
Messages
10,849
afternoon

Came across the beaut in the picture today keeping in mind it terminates below 2 meters into neighbours garden I’ve turned it off (AR). At absolute best dimension it’s 270 mm away. Landlord is kicking off at me saying they had British Gas say it’s ok.
I’m standing my ground because on a couple of occasions when the wind changed the old flue rattled and you could see pocs floating past the end of it.

7B6BC6D8-873B-444E-9398-6EAFC5F21DC1.jpeg


6583BF53-2E01-4B05-80FD-6D8DF62A2DEA.jpeg
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Riley said:
I ARd it. Funnily enough I’ve just spoken to said British gas engineer who turns out to be the LLs son and laughably he completely agrees with me and says his dads a cock. He’s never seen the boiler
Click to expand...

So now, when it suits, BG guys are the fonts of all knowledge. As opposed to being the Devils spawn?

NCS
or ID.

But why waste so much time in filling out paperwork and arguing? A half brick and a small tub of sand and cement. Sorted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree, with the others AR, and turned off (as it removes the risk). It terminates into neighbours garden? I’d be looking at advising a plume management kit also. Recommended to remove that old flue and brick up/fill with suitable,material.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DuncanM said:
I am with firemant, just get it sorted. You will have wasted more time and effort with this than it would take to make good and now you will have to go back to do it. Crazy.
Click to expand...
All very well if it’s the homeowner there mate. But LL already kicked off when I turned it off so he’s going to have to pay for another gas cert so me sticking a bill in without quoting for the works would probably end up with me losing money
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Riley said:
All very well if it’s the homeowner there mate. But LL already kicked off when I turned it off so he’s going to have to pay for another gas cert so me sticking a bill in without quoting for the works would probably end up with me losing money
Click to expand...
Sorry, Riley. In what manner did you “turn it off”? Or is the tenant now unhappy with the LL?

And, my starter for another 10 pages, would you need to issue yet another cert.

Finally, exactly where does it classify an opening or vent within 300mm of a PF terminal, with no measured ingress, as AR?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hence mate why I asked. There was no visual or otherwise indication that ingress was occurring however all it would’ve taken would’ve been a change in wind direction and it could have increased into the cavity or straight back into the flat. As there was no obvious ingress I erred and called it AR and turned off at the fuse spur.
Tenant is absolutely fine with LL but what I’m trying to say is that I’m sure we have all come across these customers where if you don’t quote before you carry out the work then they will say they didn’t authorise it. Some aren’t bothered, I accept that, but when the LL is narky already I wasn’t going to give him any chance to have a swipe at me for turning off his boiler.
Re a new cert I am assuming yes as the current one has been issued marked as AR with a warning notice
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Riley said:
Hence mate why I asked. There was no visual or otherwise indication that ingress was occurring however all it would’ve taken would’ve been a change in wind direction and it could have increased into the cavity or straight back into the flat. As there was no obvious ingress I erred and called it AR and turned off at the fuse spur.
Tenant is absolutely fine with LL but what I’m trying to say is that I’m sure we have all come across these customers where if you don’t quote before you carry out the work then they will say they didn’t authorise it. Some aren’t bothered, I accept that, but when the LL is narky already I wasn’t going to give him any chance to have a swipe at me for turning off his boiler.
Re a new cert I am assuming yes as the current one has been issued marked as AR with a warning notice
Click to expand...
No need for a new cert if the work has been completed and everything else is fine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Riley said:
Hence mate why I asked. There was no visual or otherwise indication that ingress was occurring however all it would’ve taken would’ve been a change in wind direction and it could have increased into the cavity or straight back into the flat. As there was no obvious ingress I erred and called it AR and turned off at the fuse spur.
Tenant is absolutely fine with LL but what I’m trying to say is that I’m sure we have all come across these customers where if you don’t quote before you carry out the work then they will say they didn’t authorise it. Some aren’t bothered, I accept that, but when the LL is narky already I wasn’t going to give him any chance to have a swipe at me for turning off his boiler.
Re a new cert I am assuming yes as the current one has been issued marked as AR with a warning notice
Click to expand...

Asper HF, a new cert is NOT required. Even of there is really bad stuff on it - only one per year is required. I was using my mobile phone earlier, and omitted the word "why" :)

Re doing rectifications: if one is doing the stupid cheap certs via an agent, then I probably would do absolutely no more than the basics. When I dealt with a couple of Agents and LL's, I only took on the job if I was authorised to do (chargeable) minor repairs, and I always explain my charging structure in writing.

However, if I was your LL, I would be hacked off as well, TBH. That situation is NCS or ID. AR does not come into it. And one only turns it off on the consumer control, so they can, if they wish, turn it on again. The problem is generally that a tenant, faced with a "Do Not Use" label will be kicking off at the LL for leaving them with a dangerous appliance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ah well I made my call I didn’t think NC sufficed but as there was no obvious ingress I couldn’t stretch to ID. The LL was fine once his son had explained it to him. As I say these are properties that were adopted by the LA that I do stuff for and most of them had things on them which were overlooked for years. LA was more than happy that I raised it
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Riley said:
Ah well I made my call I didn’t think NC sufficed but as there was no obvious ingress I couldn’t stretch to ID. The LL was fine once his son had explained it to him. As I say these are properties that were adopted by the LA that I do stuff for and most of them had things on them which were overlooked for years. LA was more than happy that I raised it
Click to expand...

Correct - you used your engineering judgement. I can’t see how AR doesn’t come into it as there is a risk of POC entering the premises. Usafe situations classes flues in a passageway as AR for risk of POC entering building.

And.....

EA08746B-9D48-4D88-B4F7-35A67E130D42.jpeg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CBW1982 said:
Correct - you used your engineering judgement. I can’t see how AR doesn’t come into it as there is a risk of POC entering the premises. Usafe situations classes flues in a passageway as AR for risk of POC entering building.

And...

View attachment 37673
Click to expand...

I am not disputing that the install is WRONG, but it is not classed under the Unsafe Procedure as AR. Ergo, it is NCS unless POCs are entering building. I wont even go into the concentration of POCs that would be able to enter through the grid..........

The passageway is completely different. There is an elevated risk where the flue is in a ginnel, and the through draught is restricted by the overhanging section of the wall. In those ginnels/alleys, the POC's are effectively trapped at the top, immediately under the roof ot the ginnel - which is efectively the floor of the flat. Any gaps in that area will allow the POCs to naturally rise and ingress.

At the end of the day, you can make up your own rules, but don't be surprised if, one day, a clued up LL sues you for any loss of income or expenditure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I get where you are coming from however as per the other debate the other night NCS is technically not a term anymore. I know I still use it, well NC, but these advisories make LLs even less inclined to fix things correctly. I am not upset or worried that I said the wrong thing as, as far as I was concerned if the wind changed there would be POCs blowing directly in the hole. Again not all engineering calls are covered by one blanket answer and require some common sense sometimes. I’m not trying to get into an arguement or a slanging match about it. I made my call I will sleep easy. To be fair the tenant will probably thank me too as the draught coming in was bonkers
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
firemant said:
I am not disputing that the install is WRONG, but it is not classed under the Unsafe Procedure as AR. Ergo, it is NCS unless POCs are entering building. I wont even go into the concentration of POCs that would be able to enter through the grid....

The passageway is completely different. There is an elevated risk where the flue is in a ginnel, and the through draught is restricted by the overhanging section of the wall. In those ginnels/alleys, the POC's are effectively trapped at the top, immediately under the roof ot the ginnel - which is efectively the floor of the flat. Any gaps in that area will allow the POCs to naturally rise and ingress.

At the end of the day, you can make up your own rules, but don't be surprised if, one day, a clued up LL sues you for any loss of income or expenditure.
Click to expand...

I’m not making up my own rules, however glad I don’t work for myself - looks like I’d be out of business for loss of income lawsuits.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm confused. How can that be classed as not to current standards when A) the terminology doesn't officially exist any more. B) When the boiler was installed the standards of flue location was the same as they are today.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NCS DOES still exist. You just cannot use it on warning notice. This is basic stuff that has been discussed extensively.

If the hole was 30mm higher/ further away, it would not even be NCS.

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't, but also doesn't show NCS or the ID that you class it as? Unless I should get to specsavers - got in before someone else :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.[/QUOTE]

Unless this is where it is?

6.2 AT RISK (AR) APPLIANCES/INSTALLATIONS

An AR appliance/installation is one which is potentially dangerous i.e. where one or more faults exist and which, as a result, may in the future constitute a danger to life or property. In general, the appliance/installation should be turned off with the responsible person’s permission to make the situation safe and a “Danger Do Not Use” label attached.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
firemant said:
NCS DOES still exist. You just cannot use it on warning notice. This is basic stuff that has been discussed extensively.

If the hole was 30mm higher/ further away, it would not even be NCS.

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.
Click to expand...
I said the terminology doesn't officially exist so when dealing with unsafe situations you cannot use NCS

And following this chart, I would class the install as AR

Screenshot_20190312-202102.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
New posts

Reply to Classify this please doubting myself in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock