Coal Fire Regulations?
CJM
insulation put in.
The guys doing the work have observed that there is a coal fire in the
living room and so that have told the landlord that a vent is needed.
Having had coal fires in almost every house I've lived in, I've never
had any vents in those rooms.
Are there some regulations that state that rooms with coal fire must
have vents? Is is because it is a rented house?
The landlord has blindly agreed to the vent, but I don't want one. We
have a vent in the kitchen [which we do out best to block to prevent the
icy wind that flows freely through the kitchen] but I certainly don't
want another.
Anyone know what the purpose of the vents are? I can imagine that there
may be a purpose in a kitchen with a gas boiler/cooker, but for a coal
fire? We have CO detectors in both rooms along with smoke alarms - we
are not entirely ignorant of safety issues.
It just seems like folly to insulate the walls and then introduce
[another] draught!
TIA
Chris
Cash
> I rent a bungalow; the landlord is finally getting cavity wall
> insulation put in.
>
> The guys doing the work have observed that there is a coal fire in the
> living room and so that have told the landlord that a vent is needed.
> Having had coal fires in almost every house I've lived in, I've never
> had any vents in those rooms.
Have the rooms in those houses generally been draughty - particularly at
floor level?
> Are there some regulations that state that rooms with coal fire must
> have vents? Is is because it is a rented house?
Is it an open or enclosed (Parkray type) of fire?
The must have some sort of ventilation to make them burn - as for
regulations for vents, I am a little rusty on that now - but from memory,
there *must* be some sort of room ventilation for the enclosed (Parkray
type) of fire.
> The landlord has blindly agreed to the vent, but I don't want one.
Unfortunately that is a decision that you, as a tenant, cannot to take due
to the landlords legal obligation to provide a safe form of heating - it is
he/she who would be in the dock if you or a member of your family died of
carbon monoxide poisoning!
> We have a vent in the kitchen [which we do out best to block to prevent
> the icy wind that flows freely through the kitchen] but I certainly
> don't want another.
What is the kitchen vent for - to supply a gas boiler or water heater
perhaps? And if that is the case, you are breaking the law by blocking it
up.
> Anyone know what the purpose of the vents are? I can imagine that
> there may be a purpose in a kitchen with a gas boiler/cooker, but for
> a coal fire? We have CO detectors in both rooms along with smoke
> alarms - we are not entirely ignorant of safety issues.
Briefly the purpose of the vents are as follows:
1 For a safe and effective combustion of the solid fuel, and to
enable an air flow under the fire, through the fire basket and up into the
chimney again to enable combustion and to get rid of smoke and fumes.
2 To prevent the build-up within the room of noxious gases such as
carbon monoxide.
3 To prevent the room filling with smoke because of chimney
downdraugt conditions.
> It just seems like folly to insulate the walls and then introduce
> [another] draught!
It's more of a "folly" not to ventilate the room whatever the type of
heating.
You can introduce "draughtless" (if there ever can be such a thing)
room-to-room- ventilation by fitting high-level, one way patented vents in
doors or storey door frames that will prevent chimney downdraught, carbon
monoxide build up and a reasonably effective fuel combustion (the name of
the vents escapes me at the moment).
Cash
Blah
draughty room, O2 can get in easily. Block up the caverties with foam
and O2 has much less chance of reaching the fire.
It thus uses up O2 that you need to breathem so the danger is not CO,
but lack of O2
Sara
CJM <cjmn...@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The guys doing the work have observed that there is a coal fire in the
> living room and so that have told the landlord that a vent is needed.
> Having had coal fires in almost every house I've lived in, I've never
> had any vents in those rooms.
I have an open fire* and no one has suggested vents there. The
maisonette above is rented to and by our local council and also has an
open fireplace (I've no idea if the tenants use it however) and they
don't have vents in their sitting room either.
What's the difference between a unit seen as a coal fire or any other
kind of open fire? How can anyone tell when it's not being used? Not
being sarky, just interested.
--
Married and loving it
Martin Bonner
Correct so far.
> It thus uses up O2 that you need to breathem so the danger is not CO,
> but lack of O2
I don't believe that is correct. Dropping the oxygen level from 20%
to 10% would cause noticable problems, but they would all go away as
soon as people walked out the room. A quick google suggests the LD50
for CO is less than 1%.
It would be almost impossible to get the concentration of 02 down by
even a few % without traces of CO leaking into the room.
steve robinson
Building regulations state a minimum amount of airflow for coal and gas
appliances .
This used to be met by the draughts under the door and around the windows etc ,
with the advent of insulation and draughtproofing this is no longer the case .
The airflow is required to replenish the oxygen within the room and allow the
waste gases to flow up the chimny .
You block them at your own peril
Google building regulations and you fill find the full specs , my email is live
if you cant find the apropriate section let me know and i will send you a pdf
copy
TTman
">
> Anyone know what the purpose of the vents are? I can imagine that there
> may be a purpose in a kitchen with a gas boiler/cooker, but for a coal
> fire? We have CO detectors in both rooms along with smoke alarms - we are
> not entirely ignorant of safety issues.
>
> It just seems like folly to insulate the walls and then introduce
> [another] draught!
>
> TIA
>
> Chris
>
to have the vent fitted. They are unobtrusive and draught free, especially
if fitted behind a curtain.
If your floors are timber with a void under, you have the option of 2 grills
fitted either side of the fireplace to provide ventilation.
A draughty house is no substitue, although it may well be practically
adequate ( as is my house).
I checked with Building control a few weeks backl as I had the same issue
as you and was advised as I have posted here. The one question BC couldn't
answer was why the property was built without a vent in the first place (
built circa 1950). None of the houses in our close have them, except where
thay have had cavity wall insulation.
CJM
I've just spoken with my brother who is a builder/joiner. It's been 15
yrs since he built a house with a coal fire so he admits he may be out
of touch with current regs, but he said that previously there was no
legal requirement for builders to include vents for coal fires. He also
said that the purpose of the vent was to encourage proper airflow (up
the chimney) but that my house didn't need it and he advised me not to
bother with the vents.
The insulation people have apparently put the vent in anyway, but having
tried my best to do some research, I remain unconvinced. I've never seen
a house with a coal fire needing a vent, in a lifetime of living with
coal fires, and this house needs no additional draughts.
The lack of oxygen argument is just laughable; for a fire to consume
enough oxygen to have a significant imopact it would have to be a
helluva fire in a largely sealed room, and even then the fire would soon
fail to thrive.
I've yet to see the vent, and I am skeptical about them being
draught-free, but I'll give it a few days and see how it performs. If
there are (more) draughts it will get covered; if I don't notice an
difference, I'll leave it be. Perhaps, if the room was double-glazed and
the internal door & hatch were of a snug fit, I could be more readily
convinced.
Regardless, thanks for all your efforts.
Flop
If you have timber floors with a void underneath, you could fit a
recessed fireplace where the air is take from under the floorboards.
Thus:
http://www.c20fires.co.uk/fireplace_accessories/burnall.htm
We have one - they are draught proof, easy to control and effective.
HTH
Flop
Cash
> FYI: the fire is open, is a 'good burner' and has no problems with
> airflow.
> I've just spoken with my brother who is a builder/joiner. It's been 15
> yrs since he built a house with a coal fire so he admits he may be out
> of touch with current regs, but he said that previously there was no
> legal requirement for builders to include vents for coal fires. He
> also said that the purpose of the vent was to encourage proper
> airflow (up
Correct - but don't forget noxious fumes!
> the chimney) but that my house didn't need it and he advised me not to
> bother with the vents.
Incorrect and very poor advice - especially with regards to the vent because
it is the landlord who is responsible for the property *AND* the safety of
your heating system.
> The insulation people have apparently put the vent in anyway, but
> having tried my best to do some research, I remain unconvinced. I've
> never seen a house with a coal fire needing a vent, in a lifetime of
> living with
> coal fires, and this house needs no additional draughts.
> The lack of oxygen argument is just laughable; for a fire to consume
> enough oxygen to have a significant imopact it would have to be a
> helluva fire in a largely sealed room, and even then the fire would
> soon fail to thrive.
> I've yet to see the vent, and I am skeptical about them being
> draught-free, but I'll give it a few days and see how it performs. If
> there are (more) draughts it will get covered; if I don't notice an
> difference, I'll leave it be. Perhaps, if the room was double-glazed
> and the internal door & hatch were of a snug fit, I could be more
> readily convinced.
With all due repects, the only time I think you would be convinced was if a
near-fatality or actual fatality occured because all draughts were sealed
and/or a vent was blocked and the room was inundated with carbon monoxide.
Have a look at the link below:
http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/frame/main.html
And also this one:
http://www.hetas.co.uk/public/hetas_guide.html
Please note that I have just glanced at them, I would suggest that you study
them to extract the facts relevant to your situation.
> Regardless, thanks for all your efforts.
Thank you for you feedback.
Cash
Old Codger
>
> I checked with Building control a few weeks backl as I had the same issue
> as you and was advised as I have posted here. The one question BC couldn't
> answer was why the property was built without a vent in the first place (
> built circa 1950). None of the houses in our close have them, except where
> thay have had cavity wall insulation.
My bungalow was built in 1960 with an open fire in the lounge and a
boiler (probably solid fuel originally) in the kitchen. No vents
anywhere in the property.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Colin Wilson
> yrs since he built a house with a coal fire so he admits he may be out
> of touch with current regs, but he said that previously there was no
> legal requirement for builders to include vents for coal fires
IANAL etc
Gas fires require vents to be fitted under certain conditions (cavity
wall insulation and the blocking up of existing vents being one of the
categories IIRC), and I don't see a whole lot of difference from one
combustible material to another in this respect.
Ste
wrote:
>
> > The landlord has blindly agreed to the vent, but I don't want one.
>
> Unfortunately that is a decision that you, as a tenant, cannot to take due
> to the landlords legal obligation to provide a safe form of heating - it is
> he/she who would be in the dock if you or a member of your family died of
> carbon monoxide poisoning!
The tenant can, in practice, simply block the vent. I would recommend
this as your only course of action if the landlord insists that the
vent be fitted.
> > We have a vent in the kitchen [which we do out best to block to prevent
> > the icy wind that flows freely through the kitchen] but I certainly
> > don't want another.
>
> What is the kitchen vent for - to supply a gas boiler or water heater
> perhaps? And if that is the case, you are breaking the law by blocking it
> up.
Under no circumstances is the simple blocking of a vent an offence
(regardless of the purported purpose of the vent). Obviously if this
serves to make an appliance unsafe, then in some circumstances it may
be an offence. However, I would also point out that there is generally
no requirement to upgrade an old setup, provided it complied (and
continues to comply) with the law at the time it was installed.
I would also say that, from a landlord's point of view, it is better
to have cold tenants than dead tenants. Under no circumstance is the
fitting of a vent likely to incur a liability for the landlord, while
on the other hand the liability arising from an unventilated appliance
can potentially be huge.
However from the tenant's point of view, it is not reasonable to
expect them to incur greater heating bills and suffer huge draughts
through their home, and degrade their comfort in general, when the
appliance was already sufficiently ventilated and was operating
acceptably (and there is no evidence to the contrary).
In my view, coal fires are now an anachronism anyway - it is proven
that they actually reduce the air temperature in the room (though the
radiant heat warms those sitting directly in front of it). If draughts
or ventilation is a problem within a property, then the correct course
of action ought to be to replace the heating system with a modern
boiler, which besides being more efficient, do not require any source
of ventilation within the property.
> > Anyone know what the purpose of the vents are? I can imagine that
> > there may be a purpose in a kitchen with a gas boiler/cooker, but for
> > a coal fire? We have CO detectors in both rooms along with smoke
> > alarms - we are not entirely ignorant of safety issues.
>
> Briefly the purpose of the vents are as follows:
>
> 1 For a safe and effective combustion of the solid fuel, and to
> enable an air flow under the fire, through the fire basket and up into the
> chimney again to enable combustion and to get rid of smoke and fumes.
>
> 2 To prevent the build-up within the room of noxious gases such as
> carbon monoxide.
>
> 3 To prevent the room filling with smoke because of chimney
> downdraugt conditions.
One would have thought a vent within the room, and hence greater
ventilation, would *increase* the chance of the room filling with
smoke in the event of downdraught.
> > It just seems like folly to insulate the walls and then introduce
> > [another] draught!
>
> It's more of a "folly" not to ventilate the room whatever the type of
> heating.
Most rooms in normal use have adequate ventilation (including existing
air vents) without the requirement for any additional external air
ventilation to be fitted.
> You can introduce "draughtless" (if there ever can be such a thing)
> room-to-room- ventilation by fitting high-level, one way patented vents in
> doors or storey door frames that will prevent chimney downdraught, carbon
> monoxide build up and a reasonably effective fuel combustion (the name of
> the vents escapes me at the moment).
Of what value are the vents if they "prevent ... effective fuel
combustion"?
"nightjar" <cpb@
"TTman" <someo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qlkgl.27329$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> ... The one question BC couldn't
> answer was why the property was built without a vent in the first place (
> built circa 1950). None of the houses in our close have them, except
> where
> thay have had cavity wall insulation.
The answer is because there was no requirement, or, in most houses, need, to
do so. The high oil prices of the early 1970s lead to us all being
encouraged to draughtproof our homes and put at least 1" (25mm) of
insulation in the loft. Draughtproofing closed off the traditional source of
air for open fires, creating the need for dedicated air vents.
Colin Bignell
CJM
Neat, unobtrusive and they have tied up properly.
On the down-side it's not entirely draught free, but on the plus side, I can
rent my living room out to BAE as a wind-tunnel.
If it came a choice between the coal fire and the vent, I'd seal up the vent
and stick to central heating. Or just carry on as we have done since the
house was built.
mogga
wrote:
>FYI: the fire is open, is a 'good burner' and has no problems with airflow.
>
>I've just spoken with my brother who is a builder/joiner. It's been 15
>yrs since he built a house with a coal fire so he admits he may be out
But he's not a HETAS man
http://www.hetas.co.uk/
>of touch with current regs, but he said that previously there was no
>legal requirement for builders to include vents for coal fires. He also
>said that the purpose of the vent was to encourage proper airflow (up
>the chimney) but that my house didn't need it and he advised me not to
>bother with the vents.
>
>The insulation people have apparently put the vent in anyway, but having
>tried my best to do some research, I remain unconvinced. I've never seen
>a house with a coal fire needing a vent, in a lifetime of living with
>coal fires, and this house needs no additional draughts.
>
>The lack of oxygen argument is just laughable; for a fire to consume
>enough oxygen to have a significant imopact it would have to be a
>helluva fire in a largely sealed room, and even then the fire would soon
>fail to thrive.
>
>I've yet to see the vent, and I am skeptical about them being
>draught-free, but I'll give it a few days and see how it performs. If
>there are (more) draughts it will get covered; if I don't notice an
>difference, I'll leave it be. Perhaps, if the room was double-glazed and
>the internal door & hatch were of a snug fit, I could be more readily
>convinced.
>
>Regardless, thanks for all your efforts.
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk
CJM
>
> The answer is because there was no requirement, or, in most houses, need, to
> do so. The high oil prices of the early 1970s lead to us all being
> encouraged to draughtproof our homes and put at least 1" (25mm) of
> insulation in the loft. Draughtproofing closed off the traditional source of
> air for open fires, creating the need for dedicated air vents.
>
Doesn't anyone see the irony of blocking all the tiny holes that help a
room 'breathe' and then knock a big hole in the wall to compensate?
CJM
> TTman wrote:
>>
>
> My bungalow was built in 1960 with an open fire in the lounge and a
> boiler (probably solid fuel originally) in the kitchen. No vents
> anywhere in the property.
>
>
I think our bungalow is circa the late 70's. We have one vent in the
kitchen which feels like a silent aircon unit (in winter), and now we
have another in the lounge.
I can accept the idea that the house needs a certain amount of airflow.
Even without the kitchen vent, I suspect there are enough 'holes' to
allow air to flow in and out of the house, but with the kitchen vent and
with the lack of hermetically sealed rooms (and given a trouble-free
existence for a number of decades so far) I'm quite confident I don't
need another hole in the living room wall.
PM
>
> In my view, coal fires are now an anachronism anyway - it is proven
> that they actually reduce the air temperature in the room (though the
> radiant heat warms those sitting directly in front of it).
How so? From what I remember where I used to live, the only heating was a
coal fire in the front room, and it was the warmest room in the house.
I don't disbelieve you, but I would be interested in an explanation.
Cash
> On 29 Jan, 15:05, "Cash" <.............\\@...............//.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> The landlord has blindly agreed to the vent, but I don't want one.
>>
>> Unfortunately that is a decision that you, as a tenant, cannot to
>> take due to the landlords legal obligation to provide a safe form of
>> heating - it is he/she who would be in the dock if you or a member
>> of your family died of carbon monoxide poisoning!
>
> The tenant can, in practice, simply block the vent. I would recommend
> this as your only course of action if the landlord insists that the
> vent be fitted.
I agree that the "The tenant can, in practice, simply block the vent" but
the advice is poor with regards to "as your only course of action if the
landlord insists that the vent be fitted" for a number of reasons - the main
one being the build up of C20 (Carbon Monoxide) leading to death.
Not possible with an open coal fire? Yes it is!
>
>>> We have a vent in the kitchen [which we do out best to block to
>>> prevent the icy wind that flows freely through the kitchen] but I
>>> certainly don't want another.
>>
>> What is the kitchen vent for - to supply a gas boiler or water heater
>> perhaps? And if that is the case, you are breaking the law by
>> blocking it up.
>
> Under no circumstances is the simple blocking of a vent an offence
> (regardless of the purported purpose of the vent). Obviously if this
> serves to make an appliance unsafe, then in some circumstances it may
> be an offence. However, I would also point out that there is generally
> no requirement to upgrade an old setup, provided it complied (and
> continues to comply) with the law at the time it was installed.
Yes it it is an *offence* with a gas boiler or fire, and a servicing
engineer will stick a prohibition notice on the appliance - and in many
cases disable it to prevent its use - this has to be done under the current
legislation - and it also an offence for the notice to removed by anyone
other than a corgi registered engineer.
The same also applies to an enclosed solid fuel appliance (apart from the
Corgi aspect).
> I would also say that, from a landlord's point of view, it is better
> to have cold tenants than dead tenants. Under no circumstance is the
> fitting of a vent likely to incur a liability for the landlord, while
> on the other hand the liability arising from an unventilated appliance
> can potentially be huge.
Agreed
> However from the tenant's point of view, it is not reasonable to
> expect them to incur greater heating bills and suffer huge draughts
> through their home, and degrade their comfort in general, when the
> appliance was already sufficiently ventilated and was operating
> acceptably (and there is no evidence to the contrary).
Who makes the decision on this? It has to be the landord and not the
tenant.
> In my view, coal fires are now an anachronism anyway - it is proven
> that they actually reduce the air temperature in the room (though the
> radiant heat warms those sitting directly in front of it). If draughts
> or ventilation is a problem within a property, then the correct course
> of action ought to be to replace the heating system with a modern
> boiler, which besides being more efficient, do not require any source
> of ventilation within the property.
Not quite true - all modern boilers must have some form of indirect
ventilation (vents through walls etc) or direct ventilation (balanced flue
type) - and this *is* *a* *legal* requirement.
>
>>> Anyone know what the purpose of the vents are? I can imagine that
>>> there may be a purpose in a kitchen with a gas boiler/cooker, but
>>> for a coal fire? We have CO detectors in both rooms along with smoke
>>> alarms - we are not entirely ignorant of safety issues.
>>
>> Briefly the purpose of the vents are as follows:
>>
>> 1 For a safe and effective combustion of the solid fuel, and to
>> enable an air flow under the fire, through the fire basket and up
>> into the chimney again to enable combustion and to get rid of smoke
>> and fumes.
>>
>> 2 To prevent the build-up within the room of noxious gases such as
>> carbon monoxide.
>>
>> 3 To prevent the room filling with smoke because of chimney
>> downdraugt conditions.
>
> One would have thought a vent within the room, and hence greater
> ventilation, would *increase* the chance of the room filling with
> smoke in the event of downdraught.
You don't get a downdraught in a properly vented room - the heat from the
fire 'pulls' the air from the floor and up into the chimney.
>
>>> It just seems like folly to insulate the walls and then introduce
>>> [another] draught!
>>
>> It's more of a "folly" not to ventilate the room whatever the type of
>> heating.
>
> Most rooms in normal use have adequate ventilation (including existing
> air vents) without the requirement for any additional external air
> ventilation to be fitted.
Not so - you can get an almost hermetically sealed room when a tenant/owner
is rather over zealous with the draghtproofing and vent blocking - and air
only enters when the door to tha room is open (and the smoke that's been
hanging around suddenly disappears up the chimney).
>> You can introduce "draughtless" (if there ever can be such a thing)
>> room-to-room- ventilation by fitting high-level, one way patented
>> vents in doors or storey door frames that will prevent chimney
>> downdraught, carbon monoxide build up and a reasonably effective
>> fuel combustion (the name of the vents escapes me at the moment).
>
> Of what value are the vents if they "prevent ... effective fuel
> combustion"?
I did not say that a vent "prevents effective combustion" - if I did, please
point that statement out to me but I did say "a reasonably effective fuel
combustion" which is correct btw.
Cash
Cash
Yes!
But do you also see the irony of blocking the vents to keep warm, and then
spend an eternity buried in the cold ground for a moment of stupidity?
Ah well!
Cash
Big Les Wade
<?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
> posted
>Yes it it is an *offence* with a gas boiler or fire, and a servicing
>engineer will stick a prohibition notice on the appliance - and in many
>cases disable it to prevent its use - this has to be done under the
>current legislation -
Disabling certainly isn't. That's a matter for the householder. But I
agree that many CORGI fitters think they have this power and will assert
it if the householder is willing to be bullied, as many old ladies are.
After all, that is how the CORGI fraternity make their money.
Mind you, it is self-defeating in a way. I have had to warn my ancient
mother-in-law never to call a gas repair man without making sure I am
there first. This is because the last one (who came along when I wasn't
there) disconnected her gas fire in January subzero temperatures,
leaving her to freeze.
--
Les
Conspiracy theorists believe that officials sometimes mislead the public to
conceal wrongdoing. Realists do not believe in conspiracy theories.
CJM
>> Doesn't anyone see the irony of blocking all the tiny holes that help
>> a room 'breathe' and then knock a big hole in the wall to compensate?
>
> Yes!
>
> But do you also see the irony of blocking the vents to keep warm, and then
> spend an eternity buried in the cold ground for a moment of stupidity?
>
Can you explain why this fire is suddenly a death-trap when the original
builders saw fit to design the house as such and it's been running
safely ever since?
Can you explain the magical properties of the insulating foam that has
been injected between the two external walls that so radically changes
the airflow of this house?
Can you explain how carbon monoxide poisoning is suddenly going to occur
in this house, given the changes made, yet without troubling the
carbon monoxide sensors?
The only stupidity I can see is lay people blindly parroting someone
else advice even when the advice flies in the face of all reason.
Blah
and the air drawn in for the burning process has to come from somewhere
- inevitably it is cold air sucked in through drafts (draughts?) making
the room cooler. I think this has a point in a 'hole above the fire '
system (like a teepee), but the only fire I saw up close had a
complicated kink flu and some sort of shutter, so the rising heat is
bounced into the room and/or the chimney breast warm up and acts like a
radiator.
Blah
wind will whistle in through holes at one end of the room, and out
others at the opposite end, creating a cross draught. One hole will not
allow much circulation of draughts
Ste
The explanation is that the hot air literally goes straight up the
chimney, and the pressure drop causes cold air to be drawn into the
room. I could be droll and suggest a possible reason why your front
room was so warm was because it was not properly ventilated!
However the fundamental principle is that a coal fire warms the
contents of the room by radiant heat. For those sitting near the fire
(and especially if they are away from places of cold-air ingress) the
room will obviously feel substantially warmer, because their skin is
being warmed directly by absorbing radiant heat from the fire (as
opposed to being warmed by the surrounding air).
A.Lee
> Cash posted
> >Yes it it is an *offence* with a gas boiler or fire, and a servicing
> >engineer will stick a prohibition notice on the appliance - and in many
> >cases disable it to prevent its use - this has to be done under the
> >current legislation -
>
> Disabling certainly isn't. That's a matter for the householder. But I
> agree that many CORGI fitters think they have this power and will assert
> it if the householder is willing to be bullied, as many old ladies are.
> After all, that is how the CORGI fraternity make their money.
>
> Mind you, it is self-defeating in a way. I have had to warn my ancient
> mother-in-law never to call a gas repair man without making sure I am
> there first. This is because the last one (who came along when I wasn't
> there) disconnected her gas fire in January subzero temperatures,
> leaving her to freeze.
Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
I had this conversation yesterday with a Corgi man I was working with.
If he left a house with a faulty boiler (say), and it then blew up, or
killed the occupants through a gas leak, then it is he who is liable,
hence to conform to the guidelines, he must turn off the gas.
If the owner then turns the offending item back on, then that is up to
them, but they will have been warned to not use the appliance until it
is fixed.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
TTman
>
> Can you explain why this fire is suddenly a death-trap when the original
> builders saw fit to design the house as such and it's been running safely
> ever since?
It always was a death trap, nothing has changed. In the old days, ppl did
things by common sense..... Nowadays, we're not allowed to use common sense
at all.
Common sense said that in every house where there is a coal fire, doors open
and close, cracks, gaps everywhere enabled enough free air to provide
propper combustion.
>
> Can you explain the magical properties of the insulating foam that has
> been injected between the two external walls that so radically changes the
> airflow of this house?
You're right, It doesn't change anything.
>
> Can you explain how carbon monoxide poisoning is suddenly going to occur
> in this house, given the changes made, yet without troubling the carbon
> monoxide sensors?
It isn''t going to suddenly occur, you're right again. 2 out of 3
>
> The only stupidity I can see is lay people blindly parroting someone else
> advice even when the advice flies in the face of all reason.
3 out of 4. That's a pass. Unfortunately there may be some old fool in the
future that decides to fill all the cracks and gaps, put draught extruders
all around the doors and windows, a snake across the bottom of the doors,
tape up the cat flap, put sealing caulk around every gap in the skiring
board, lift the carpets and seall all the joints in the floor boards......
did I forget anything? Oh yes, failed to notice the several years worth of
crows' nests in the top of the chimeney...
Now he lights a nice fire on that extra cold day, humps up the coal, closes
to door to get nice and warm and drops off to sleep in the cozy comfort of
his ready made coffin.
Yes, we hear what you say, we all agree with you, but some dam fool
somewhere has decreed that by law, the vent shall be fitted, or you will be
shot. You will also be shot is you are found with it blocked off.
Hey, we have 30 mph speed limits too, and no one gives a hoot. That's the
law too.
Mine wil be fitted in 4 weeks or so and the minute the contractors have
gone, it will get blocked off. My house is no different to the other
millions around. Plenty draughty to support a raging fire- cat flap/dog
flap/ conservatory/serving hatch/gaps under doors/gaps in the skirting/gaps
in the floorboards/door open,close endless times . supplying enough air to
fuel a Rolls Royce turbine.
I hope this helps you come to terms with your dilema.
Old Codger
Read the relevant sentence again, taken absolutely literally you did
although I think most readers will assume the meaning you intended.
"....... that will prevent ...., .... and a reasonably effective fuel
consumption."
Ste
wrote:
> > The tenant can, in practice, simply block the vent. I would recommend
> > this as your only course of action if the landlord insists that the
> > vent be fitted.
>
> I agree that the "The tenant can, in practice, simply block the vent" but
> the advice is poor with regards to "as your only course of action if the
> landlord insists that the vent be fitted" for a number of reasons - the main
> one being the build up of C20 (Carbon Monoxide) leading to death.
Of course, we know the landlord has not carried out checks and
identified a problem with CO or ventilation. He is simply following a
rule of thumb that "more is better". For the tenant, it is quite
unacceptable to have cold draughts coming in the room - moreso when
the fire is not lit, or would not be lit but for the cold draught!
Even in cases where additional ventilation is required, landlords
often take a brutal approach without any regard for comfort whatsoever
- so vents are often oversize, and placed where the resulting cold air
currents will cause maximum distress to the householder. I have seen
vents fitted to opposite ends of the room, and in some cases opposite
ends of the house, so that cold air is literally sucked throughout
property. The correct approach would be to fit any vent directly next
to the fire, with the minimum disturbance to warm air contained within
the room.
> Not possible with an open coal fire? Yes it is!
I have never suggested that a coal fire will not generate CO if not
adequately ventilated. The danger is certainly greater with gas
appliances, especially boilers, as the combustion chamber is often out
of view, and the products of incomplete combustion cannot generally be
detected. I imagine it is somewhat rarer with an open coal fire,
however, since an unventilated coal fire would release obviously
noxious fumes into the room, as well as being seen to burn poorly.
> > Under no circumstances is the simple blocking of a vent an offence
> > (regardless of the purported purpose of the vent). Obviously if this
> > serves to make an appliance unsafe, then in some circumstances it may
> > be an offence. However, I would also point out that there is generally
> > no requirement to upgrade an old setup, provided it complied (and
> > continues to comply) with the law at the time it was installed.
>
> Yes it it is an *offence* with a gas boiler or fire, and a servicing
> engineer will stick a prohibition notice on the appliance - and in many
> cases disable it to prevent its use - this has to be done under the current
> legislation - and it also an offence for the notice to removed by anyone
> other than a corgi registered engineer.
Any person can service a gas appliance in their own home provided that
they are competent to do so (though I stress most people are not).
Also I am not familiar with the specific legislation off the top of my
head, but the sealing of a vent, provided the appliance continues to
operate safely, is not an offence. So, for example, if you had two
vents, but found that ventilation was more than adequate with only one
vent, then it would be perfectly acceptable to seal one of the vents
up.
I would also point out that, in the case of legacy gas appliances,
there is no requirement to bring the appliance into conformity with
current regulations. So, if an older gas appliance is working
perfectly acceptably (and there is no evidence of carbon buildup, CO
in the combustion products, etc), then there is no requirement to add
further ventilation.
Of course, the real problem is that even if ventilation is slightly
inadequate, this could often be remedied by a vent proportionally
sized and located with respect to householder comfort. But the mere
mention of carbon monoxide often has gas engineers reaching for the
lump hammer in order to install large vents on three walls out of
four.
> The same also applies to an enclosed solid fuel appliance (apart from the
> Corgi aspect).
There is a general requirement that any appliance be in safe working
order. That much we agree is correct.
> > I would also say that, from a landlord's point of view, it is better
> > to have cold tenants than dead tenants. Under no circumstance is the
> > fitting of a vent likely to incur a liability for the landlord, while
> > on the other hand the liability arising from an unventilated appliance
> > can potentially be huge.
>
> Agreed
Hence the landlord is quite satisfied to have the property resemble a
wind tunnel.
> > However from the tenant's point of view, it is not reasonable to
> > expect them to incur greater heating bills and suffer huge draughts
> > through their home, and degrade their comfort in general, when the
> > appliance was already sufficiently ventilated and was operating
> > acceptably (and there is no evidence to the contrary).
>
> Who makes the decision on this? It has to be the landord and not the
> tenant.
Ordinarily, I agree that most people have no idea what is good for
them. However, I do not agree that the landlord is the person
qualified to make the decision here. He has a vested economic
interest, and as far as he is concerned, he doesn't care whether the
appliance is safe and nor does he care about the comfort of his
tenants. He is merely concerned to comply with the legislation, and
the quickest and easiest way to do this is knock a ventilation hole in
every single property - and if the property already has a vent, hey,
why not add another while he's there just to be on the safe side.
The only time I would trust the landlord alone to make the decision is
when his personal comfort is directly related to the personal comfort
of his tenant, because in that event he will be more careful to test
the appliance and ensure ventilation is as much, and no more, than is
required.
> > In my view, coal fires are now an anachronism anyway - it is proven
> > that they actually reduce the air temperature in the room (though the
> > radiant heat warms those sitting directly in front of it). If draughts
> > or ventilation is a problem within a property, then the correct course
> > of action ought to be to replace the heating system with a modern
> > boiler, which besides being more efficient, do not require any source
> > of ventilation within the property.
>
> Not quite true - all modern boilers must have some form of indirect
> ventilation (vents through walls etc) or direct ventilation (balanced flue
> type) - and this *is* *a* *legal* requirement.
Yes, obviously *some* ventilation is required for combustion - that
surely went without saying. What I meant is that with modern
appliances, that is those which have sealed combustion chambers, there
is no requirement for ventilation within the property. The only
ventilation required is that which is already inherent in the
appliance.
So, for those disturbed by the amount of ventilation in their
property, the answer is to fit a modern heating system (or have the
landlord fit one).
> > One would have thought a vent within the room, and hence greater
> > ventilation, would *increase* the chance of the room filling with
> > smoke in the event of downdraught.
>
> You don't get a downdraught in a properly vented room - the heat from the
> fire 'pulls' the air from the floor and up into the chimney.
On further consideration, agreed.
> >>> It just seems like folly to insulate the walls and then introduce
> >>> [another] draught!
>
> >> It's more of a "folly" not to ventilate the room whatever the type of
> >> heating.
>
> > Most rooms in normal use have adequate ventilation (including existing
> > air vents) without the requirement for any additional external air
> > ventilation to be fitted.
>
> Not so - you can get an almost hermetically sealed room when a tenant/owner
> is rather over zealous with the draghtproofing and vent blocking - and air
> only enters when the door to tha room is open (and the smoke that's been
> hanging around suddenly disappears up the chimney).
In most cases, the tenant is over-zealous precisely because they find
it difficult to keep the temperature of the room at an acceptable
level.
I suppose fundamentally, I object to the suggestion "it is better to
be cold than dead". In fact neither state of affairs should be
acceptable in our society today, and if landlords are finding that
appliances cannot be made safe without substantially interfering with
the comfort of the householder, then the appliance should be replaced
with a more suitable one. It is not an answer to knock holes in
people's walls and tell them it's for their own good.
Incidentally, I suppose I'm in touch with this issue precisely because
I have an elderly and ailing relative in cold, damp, draughty pre-war
housing, with an archaic gas fire and back boiler, who rightfully
objects when the council turn up and propose for no apparent reason to
make a cold, damp, draughty house even more so.
> >> You can introduce "draughtless" (if there ever can be such a thing)
> >> room-to-room- ventilation by fitting high-level, one way patented
> >> vents in doors or storey door frames that will prevent chimney
> >> downdraught, carbon monoxide build up and a reasonably effective
> >> fuel combustion (the name of the vents escapes me at the moment).
>
> > Of what value are the vents if they "prevent ... effective fuel
> > combustion"?
>
> I did not say that a vent "prevents effective combustion" - if I did, please
> point that statement out to me but I did say "a reasonably effective fuel
> combustion" which is correct btw.
You did say that, but never mind. I knew what you meant.
Big Les Wade
>
>Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
>allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
>the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
How do you mean, "has to"? Specifically what compels him?
>
>I had this conversation yesterday with a Corgi man I was working with.
And do you regard him as an unbiased authority?
>If he left a house with a faulty boiler (say), and it then blew up, or
>killed the occupants through a gas leak, then it is he who is liable,
Liable to whom and for what? Why should my mother in law care what he is
liable for?
>hence to conform to the guidelines, he must turn off the gas.
What guidelines, and what legal force do they have in the sense of legal
penalties imposed on people who do or don't do certain things?
>
>If the owner then turns the offending item back on, then that is up to
>them,
No, it's the *owner's gas fire, and it is the *owner* who has the right
to decide whether it is turned off or not.
>but they will have been warned to not use the appliance until it
>is fixed.
That would be fine. Cutting off a gas fire to leave an old lady
freezing, to avoid the minuscule risk of CO poisoning, is not.
Ste
>
> Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
> allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
> the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
There is a big difference between what a CORGI engineer is instructed
to do, or ought to do, and what the law says he must do.
If the law says he must isolate the appliance, that does not mean he
has any absolute right to interfere with the appliance or the
substance of the customer's property. In all likelihood, he would have
the right only to isolate the property at the meter point (or
earlier).
> I had this conversation yesterday with a Corgi man I was working with.
> If he left a house with a faulty boiler (say), and it then blew up, or
> killed the occupants through a gas leak, then it is he who is liable,
> hence to conform to the guidelines, he must turn off the gas.
It goes without saying that if he negligently left an appliance in a
faulty state, he would be liable. However, "turning off the gas" does
not mean he has the right to turn off any valve belonging to the
customer, slap a sticker on any appliance, nor intefere with any
appliance in order to prevent its continued use. Unless he has the
customer's consent, his only right is to isolate the property from the
gas main, and that will normally be either at the meter, or a valve
located outside from the customer's property.
Ste
>
> >Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
> >allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
> >the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
>
> How do you mean, "has to"? Specifically what compels him?
I think we need to clarify what we mean by "gas man". A gas engineer
in your home, at your invitation and employed by you, can simply be
asked to leave on demand, and he cannot insist on taking any action in
relation to any gas appliance or fitting.
However in practice, if that gas engineer finds a fault, and believes
that there is a danger, and you do not allow him to remedy the
situation, then in all likelihood he will report the situation to the
gas board. A different gas man is then going to turn up, one from the
gas board. He has the right to break into your home, but in the event
of non-cooperation, he is more likely to simply isolate the property
from the main, and it will not be reconnected until all appliances and
fittings are confirmed as safe.
> >I had this conversation yesterday with a Corgi man I was working with.
>
> And do you regard him as an unbiased authority?
Most gas men know nothing about gas laws, by which I mean gas
legislation.
> >If he left a house with a faulty boiler (say), and it then blew up, or
> >killed the occupants through a gas leak, then it is he who is liable,
>
> Liable to whom and for what? Why should my mother in law care what he is
> liable for?
She shouldn't.
> >hence to conform to the guidelines, he must turn off the gas.
>
> What guidelines, and what legal force do they have in the sense of legal
> penalties imposed on people who do or don't do certain things?
A gas man is not specifically obligated to turn off the gas. But he
has wide ranging powers, and in practice he will turn your gas off if
he feels it would be dangerous if he did not.
> >If the owner then turns the offending item back on, then that is up to
> >them,
>
> No, it's the *owner's gas fire, and it is the *owner* who has the right
> to decide whether it is turned off or not.
Yes, but the service pipes are owned by the gas man, and he can simply
turn off all supply to your property.
> >but they will have been warned to not use the appliance until it
> >is fixed.
>
> That would be fine. Cutting off a gas fire to leave an old lady
> freezing, to avoid the minuscule risk of CO poisoning, is not.
Assuming, however, that the old lady is not simply being stubborn and
refusing to make good the appliance. If a gas man, for whatever
reason, was forced to turn the gas off in a vulnerable person's home
(say, a part not in stock would take a week to order), I would expect
him to take reasonable steps to ensure that the property remained
habitable, for example, by providing a replacement electric heater
(though by law he would not be required to take these steps).
"nightjar" <cpb@
"CJM" <cjmn...@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6ug0bcF...@mid.individual.net...
A properly designed vent will unobtrusively provide air for the fire to
burn, as opposed to it drawing warmed air out of the room, which is replaced
by cold air from outside.
Colin Bignell
Johnno
No he MUST disconnect it:
http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk/PH&S%20Gas%20interlocks%20in%20kitchens.html
# It should be understood that the CORGI Registered person (Not the
company) making the inspection and signing the certificate is personally
liable for any unsafe conditions. Furthermore if they do not issue a Not
to Current Standards (NCS) notification or sticker the equipment as
“unsafe do not use” and physically disconnect it from the gas supply
they could be prosecuted for negligence personally in extreme
circumstances.
Cash
> Cash
> <?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
>> posted
>> Yes it it is an *offence* with a gas boiler or fire, and a servicing
>> engineer will stick a prohibition notice on the appliance - and in
>> many cases disable it to prevent its use - this has to be done under
>> the current legislation -
>
> Disabling certainly isn't. That's a matter for the householder. But I
> agree that many CORGI fitters think they have this power and will
> assert it if the householder is willing to be bullied, as many old
> ladies are. After all, that is how the CORGI fraternity make their
> money.
I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you here. The engineer is
legally bound by law to either stick a prohibition notice on a dangerous
appliance *and* if he suspects that the appliance will continue to be used
[1] - disable it - and than can include vents where they are blocked. the
engineer will certainly be prosecuted if a death or near death occurs
because of his failure to take action.
With regards to "After all, that is how the CORGI fraternity make their
money" - most CORGI fitters are honest and competent and not of the 'house
of horrors' brigade - certainly the ones that I have dealt with over very
many years have been.
[1] That has happened to be BTW - but that's another story. ;-)
> Mind you, it is self-defeating in a way. I have had to warn my ancient
> mother-in-law never to call a gas repair man without making sure I am
> there first. This is because the last one (who came along when I
> wasn't there) disconnected her gas fire in January subzero
> temperatures, leaving her to freeze.
I cannot respond to that because of the lack of information as to the fault
on the fire!
Cash
Cash
> A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> posted
>>
>> Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
>> allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
>> the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
>
> How do you mean, "has to"? Specifically what compels him?
The law.
>>
>> I had this conversation yesterday with a Corgi man I was working
>> with.
>
> And do you regard him as an unbiased authority?
That is irrelevant - he is the 'expert' and the decision is his to take -
obviously he should make the customer aware of this.
>> If he left a house with a faulty boiler (say), and it then blew up,
>> or killed the occupants through a gas leak, then it is he who is
>> liable,
>
> Liable to whom and for what? Why should my mother in law care what he
> is liable for?
The law - and if he doesn't disconnect your mother-in-law's faulty fire and
she ends up in hospital or dead as a result...
>> hence to conform to the guidelines, he must turn off the gas.
>
> What guidelines, and what legal force do they have in the sense of
> legal penalties imposed on people who do or don't do certain things?
The law of the land - and imprisonment can occur if a fatality arises.
>> If the owner then turns the offending item back on, then that is up
>> to them,
>
> No, it's the *owner's gas fire, and it is the *owner* who has the
> right to decide whether it is turned off or not.
May be the owners gas fire, but the law says the engineer must make the unit
safe.
>> but they will have been warned to not use the appliance until it
>> is fixed.
>
> That would be fine. Cutting off a gas fire to leave an old lady
> freezing, to avoid the minuscule risk of CO poisoning, is not.
Was there any other form of heating in the house (in another room perhaps or
even a boiler and full central heating), and did the engineer suggest a
source of temporary heating that could be used until a repair was carried
out (that certainly would have been the case if it was a council property if
the defective appliance was the *only* source of heat)?
Again there is a lack of information, and as for the "minuscule risk of CO
poisoning", then I wonder what your response would have been if the MiL had
been overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning because the engineer hadn't done
his job?
Cash
YAPH
> ... We
> have a vent in the kitchen [which we do out best to block to prevent the
> icy wind that flows freely through the kitchen] but I certainly don't
> want another.
>
> Anyone know what the purpose of the vents are?
If you have a boiler in the kitchen and ithas a conventional flue (e.g.
one that goes up a chimney) then the flue is required to provide the
boiler with air for combustion, allowing burnt gases to be drawn up the
flue. Without sufficient air to allow products of combustion to be drawn
away the boiler will re-burn these combustion products producing carbon
monoxide which will diffuse into the room.
By blocking the ventilation you risk killing yourself and other occupants
of the house. See http://yaph.co.uk/DIY_gas/
You are also (on topic to this group) breaking the law: specifically the
Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
What do you mean, talking about it isn't oral sex?
Blah
> Cash wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't anyone see the irony of blocking all the tiny holes that help
>>> a room 'breathe' and then knock a big hole in the wall to compensate?
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>> But do you also see the irony of blocking the vents to keep warm, and
>> then spend an eternity buried in the cold ground for a moment of
>> stupidity?
>>
>
> Can you explain why this fire is suddenly a death-trap when the original
> builders saw fit to design the house as such and it's been running
> safely ever since?
>
> Can you explain the magical properties of the insulating foam that has
> been injected between the two external walls that so radically changes
> the airflow of this house?
Yes - in our house the tops of both rows of bricks appear in the attic,
so you can peer down between the cavity. We also have a wooden floor,
suspended about 2 feet above the ground. In this 'cellar' air vents
breach into the cavity.
In years gone by, air flow could follow the path - attic, cavity,
cellar, floorboards, sitting room fire.
With cavity insulation this path is broken.
YAPH
> Under no circumstances is the simple blocking of a vent an offence
> (regardless of the purported purpose of the vent).
IANAL but GSIUR section 8-2 seems to say otherwise
"No person shall do anything which would affect a gas fitting or any flue
or means of ventilation used in connection with the fitting in such a
manner that the subsequent use of the fitting might constitute a danger to
any person..."
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/98245102.htm#8
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
This message has been rot13 encrypted twice for added security
YAPH
> On 30 Jan, 22:30, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
>> >allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
>> >the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
>>
>> How do you mean, "has to"? Specifically what compels him?
I understand that it is a provision of the GSIUR
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982451.htm
but to be honest I'm not sure which one. (Maybe some legal eagle here can
help me out?)
The "Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure" handbook published by CORGI
as a guide to registered installers such as myself says "Gas operatives
should be aware that under the requirements of the GSIUR they have a duty
to take appropriate action regarding unsafe situations and would
themselves be in contravention of the regulations if they failed to act".
This is generally referred to a a "duty of care" in the industry.
> I think we need to clarify what we mean by "gas man". A gas engineer
> in your home, at your invitation and employed by you, can simply be
> asked to leave on demand, and he cannot insist on taking any action in
> relation to any gas appliance or fitting.
No, but if I have assessed a situation as "Immediately Dangerous" (e.g.
leaking gas, or fumes entering the building) and the householder "asks me
to leave" (possibly in Anglo-Saxon, with or without invitation to meet
the family Rottweiler) then I am obliged to inform the "Emergency Service
Provider" (formerly Transco) who can and, if necessary, will dig up the
road to cut off the gas supply and thereby make the situation safe.
If I've assessed the situation as "At Risk" then I must inform the user
(and landlord if there is one) and - with the user's permission - turn off
the appliance. But my responsibility ends there.
> However in practice, if that gas engineer finds a fault, and believes
> that there is a danger, and you do not allow him to remedy the
> situation, then in all likelihood he will report the situation to the
> gas board. A different gas man is then going to turn up, one from the
> gas board. He has the right to break into your home, but in the event of
> non-cooperation, he is more likely to simply isolate the property from
> the main, and it will not be reconnected until all appliances and
> fittings are confirmed as safe.
wot I said :-)
> Most gas men know nothing about gas laws, by which I mean gas
> legislation.
We're certainly not trained lawyers, but we are required to know a fair
amount about the GSIUR, as well as various other legislation, plus
British Standards and Building Regulations. Not to mention water regs and
so on if we're plumbers as well as gas installers, and maybe electricity
regs and so on if we're qualified for that, too.
>> That would be fine. Cutting off a gas fire to leave an old lady
>> freezing, to avoid the minuscule risk of CO poisoning, is not.
As said it would be to avoid an Immediate Danger of CO poisoning, not a
miniscule risk.
> Assuming, however, that the old lady is not simply being stubborn and
> refusing to make good the appliance. If a gas man, for whatever reason,
> was forced to turn the gas off in a vulnerable person's home (say, a
> part not in stock would take a week to order), I would expect him to
> take reasonable steps to ensure that the property remained habitable,
> for example, by providing a replacement electric heater (though by law
> he would not be required to take these steps).
With regard to the aforementioned Unsafe Situations Procedure: we are also
required in the first instance to attempt to rectify an unsafe situation,
not just to cut off the gas. So if it's a gas leak, try to fix it, if it's
lack of ventilation because some muppet has hardboarded over a vent,
remove hardboard.
We have no specific obligation to provide alternative sources of heating,
hot water or cooking and I don't think many of us carry around handy
stores of electrically-safety-tested convector heaters and cooking rings
in our vans to give out to customers. But I hope most of us do what we
humanly can to ameliorate the situation when we have to act on an unsafe
situation especially where it regards heating, winter and vulnerable
people, whether that means roping in neighbours, relatives, social
services or whatever.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
87.5% of statistics are made up
Ste
>
> # It should be understood that the CORGI Registered person (Not the
> company) making the inspection and signing the certificate is personally
> liable for any unsafe conditions. Furthermore if they do not issue a Not
> to Current Standards (NCS) notification or sticker the equipment as
> “unsafe do not use” and physically disconnect it from the gas supply
> they could be prosecuted for negligence personally in extreme
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are confusing two different legal principles. If the gas man
negligently allows an unsafe appliance to be used (say, because he is
a bodger), then he will, of course, be liable in negligence.
But if a customer, taking on board the gas man's objections,
specifically orders him to do nothing and leave the property, then he
must simply leave. He has no right to take steps in relation to the
appliance without the customer's permission, and the law does not
expect him to tresspass on property or cause violence in order to
discharge his duty.
However, in the event he was ejected from the property, he would
almost certainly contact the gas board to report the fault, and they
in turn *do* have the power to use force to rectify the fault. In
practice, that would mean cutting your supply off.
Ste
That sounds quite reasonable and consistent with what I said. That is,
the simple blocking of a vent is not an offence. It is an offence ONLY
if it "affects a gas fitting ... in such a manner that the subsequent
use ... might constitute a danger".
So we can see, this paragraph only applies to gas fittings (not coal
fires), and it *only applies in the event that the alteration makes
the appliance dangerous*. If the appliance was operating perfectly
safely in the first place, without the vent, then it will be quite
acceptable to re-seal the vent.
Ste
> > I think we need to clarify what we mean by "gas man". A gas engineer
> > in your home, at your invitation and employed by you, can simply be
> > asked to leave on demand, and he cannot insist on taking any action in
> > relation to any gas appliance or fitting.
>
> No, but if I have assessed a situation as "Immediately Dangerous" (e.g.
> leaking gas, or fumes entering the building) and the householder "asks me
> to leave" (possibly in Anglo-Saxon, with or without invitation to meet
> the family Rottweiler) then I am obliged to inform the "Emergency Service
> Provider" (formerly Transco) who can and, if necessary, will dig up the
> road to cut off the gas supply and thereby make the situation safe.
>
> If I've assessed the situation as "At Risk" then I must inform the user
> (and landlord if there is one) and - with the user's permission - turn off
> the appliance. But my responsibility ends there.
I'm glad we've heard the authoritive voice on the subject.
> > Most gas men know nothing about gas laws, by which I mean gas
> > legislation.
>
> We're certainly not trained lawyers
I'm glad to hear a gas man admit that for once.
> but we are required to know a fair
> amount about the GSIUR, as well as various other legislation, plus
> British Standards and Building Regulations. Not to mention water regs and
> so on if we're plumbers as well as gas installers, and maybe electricity
> regs and so on if we're qualified for that, too.
Did you know, then, that any person can carry out gas work, not just
those who are CORGI registered? A person need only be CORGI registered
if he does gas work in a commercial fashion (I have broken this law on
occasion however lol).
Of course, I do stress that a general requirement still applies, which
is that any person who carries out gas work must do so in a
"competent" fashion.
YAPH
> On 31 Jan, 13:05, YAPH <use...@yaph.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:20:27 +0000, Ste wrote:
>> > Under no circumstances is the simple blocking of a vent an offence
>> > (regardless of the purported purpose of the vent).
>>
>> IANAL but GSIUR section 8-2 seems to say otherwise
>>
>> "No person shall do anything which would affect a gas fitting or any flue
>> or means of ventilation used in connection with the fitting in such a
>> manner that the subsequent use of the fitting might constitute a danger to
>> any person..."
> That sounds quite reasonable and consistent with what I said. That is,
> the simple blocking of a vent is not an offence. It is an offence ONLY
> if it "affects a gas fitting ... in such a manner that the subsequent
> use ... might constitute a danger".
Well, to be picky you did say "Under *no* circumstances is the simple
blocking of a vent an offence" and as you concede, it *is* an offence under
certain circumstances. (You didn't think you'd get away with that on a
legal newsgroup, did you?! ;-))
> So we can see, this paragraph only applies to gas fittings (not coal
> fires) ...
I don't know what the regulatory situation is wrt coal and other fuels.
From the slightly sarky tone of my Unsafe Situations Procedure handbook
(which suggests that the regulators of other fuel systems might take a leaf
out of the gas industry's book) I suspect that it would be an offence
under the Building Regs - which still has teeth, but not the means of
delivering them to the bum of transgressors as rapidly and effectively as
the gas watchdogs have.
> ... and it *only applies in the event that the alteration makes
> the appliance dangerous*. If the appliance was operating perfectly
> safely in the first place, without the vent, then it will be quite
> acceptable to re-seal the vent.
Not sure about that: I think it hinges on the interpretation of the
GSIUR's phrase "subsequent use of the fitting might constitute a danger".
If one reduced the purpose-provided ventilation below that required by the
appliance (which is calculated on the appliance's power rating) it might
still operating safely due to a door or window being left open
or draughts and other sources of air for combustion. However it would be
classified as "At Risk" since if one closed the doors and windows and
sealed off the draughts it might no longer work safely, in other words
might constitute a danger.
But really, in practical as well as legal terms, the solution is to
provide the *correct* amount of ventilation, and deliver it in a way that
doesn't cause draughts across living spaces which the occupants are then
tempted to block up. This is actually recommended in the British Standard
(BS 5440-2(2000)) in a "commentary and recommendations" section:
"[air vent] location should be such that the air currents produced will not
pass through normally occupied areas of a room").
Better still get rid of the appliance, which is probably an inefficient
dinosaur, and put in a room-sealed replacement.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
The floggings will continue until morale improves
Percy Picacity
news:7ae562a7-5d4a-474a...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com
:
>
> So we can see, this paragraph only applies to gas fittings (not
> coal fires), and it *only applies in the event that the alteration
> makes the appliance dangerous*. If the appliance was operating
> perfectly safely in the first place, without the vent, then it
> will be quite acceptable to re-seal the vent.
>
>
Note the "might": if the regulations say that a room with a certain
gas appliance should have x sqcm of ventilation then I think a
magistrate would accept that beyond reasonable doubt that blocking the
provided ventilator "might" cause a danger. And also do not forget
that the fact no danger can be demonstrated on particular day is not
proof there is no danger as the operating conditions of the appliance
can vary through its life and wind conditions can alter the behaviour
of flues. The bottom line is that it would almost certainly be a
provable offence if the ventilator (which is supposed to be marked as a
ventilator for a gas appliance and not to be obstructed) was blocked,
regardless of whether dangerous conditions actually occurred.
--
Percy Picacity
Ste
> > That sounds quite reasonable and consistent with what I said. That is,
> > the simple blocking of a vent is not an offence. It is an offence ONLY
> > if it "affects a gas fitting ... in such a manner that the subsequent
> > use ... might constitute a danger".
>
> Well, to be picky you did say "Under *no* circumstances is the simple
> blocking of a vent an offence" and as you concede, it *is* an offence under
> certain circumstances. (You didn't think you'd get away with that on a
> legal newsgroup, did you?! ;-))
I would argue that the blocking of a vent, which causes an appliance
to malfunction or become dangerous, is not a "simple blocking" - it is
a "blocking with consequences". This is in contrast to those who were
suggesting it would be an offence to block *any* vent which
*purported* to be necessary, whether or not it was in fact necessary
for ventilation. But ok, alright, I accept it was worded poorly. Lol.
> > So we can see, this paragraph only applies to gas fittings (not coal
> > fires) ...
>
> I don't know what the regulatory situation is wrt coal and other fuels.
> From the slightly sarky tone of my Unsafe Situations Procedure handbook
> (which suggests that the regulators of other fuel systems might take a leaf
> out of the gas industry's book) I suspect that it would be an offence
> under the Building Regs - which still has teeth, but not the means of
> delivering them to the bum of transgressors as rapidly and effectively as
> the gas watchdogs have.
I'm afraid I'm no better informed than you are in this respect. Though
I imagine the general principles of law take care of any gaps between
the regulations.
> > ... and it *only applies in the event that the alteration makes
> > the appliance dangerous*. If the appliance was operating perfectly
> > safely in the first place, without the vent, then it will be quite
> > acceptable to re-seal the vent.
>
> Not sure about that: I think it hinges on the interpretation of the
> GSIUR's phrase "subsequent use of the fitting might constitute a danger".
> If one reduced the purpose-provided ventilation below that required by the
> appliance (which is calculated on the appliance's power rating) it might
> still operating safely due to a door or window being left open
> or draughts and other sources of air for combustion. However it would be
> classified as "At Risk" since if one closed the doors and windows and
> sealed off the draughts it might no longer work safely, in other words
> might constitute a danger.
That phrase does leave a lot to interpretation. I think in reality,
though, if a householder is aware of the requirement to leave the door
open, and takes the responsibility upon himself, then there will be
little danger. And after all, if an appliance will operate safely with
an internal door open, but not when it is closed, would not the
solution be to provide internal ventilation between rooms, rather than
direct external ventilation from the cold air outside? This is where
common sense plays no part with these gasmen.
> But really, in practical as well as legal terms, the solution is to
> provide the *correct* amount of ventilation, and deliver it in a way that
> doesn't cause draughts across living spaces which the occupants are then
> tempted to block up. This is actually recommended in the British Standard
> (BS 5440-2(2000)) in a "commentary and recommendations" section:
> "[air vent] location should be such that the air currents produced will not
> pass through normally occupied areas of a room").
In the case of my nan, the air vent installed by the council was
located directly next to her feet where she sat. An older vent had
been inadvertently blocked off by built-in wooden furniture, so as
opposed to the obvious course of action (which I later carried out
myself) of adding ventilation holes to the wooden furniture so air
could pass through, the council simply knocked another, very large
vent in a place that caused maxmium mixing of cold air and maximum
discomfort. Of course, she promptly blocked up this new vent because
the draughts were intolerable, and it was only through my own effort
that proper ventilation was ensured.
> Better still get rid of the appliance, which is probably an inefficient
> dinosaur, and put in a room-sealed replacement.
Agreed. Which is why I've previously said, if the option is between a
dangerous appliance and a room as cold as an ice box, then the real
option to be considered is complete replacement of the appliance.
Ste
wrote:
> Big Les Wade wrote:
> > Cash
> > <?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
> >> posted
> >> Yes it it is an *offence* with a gas boiler or fire, and a servicing
> >> engineer will stick a prohibition notice on the appliance - and in
> >> many cases disable it to prevent its use - this has to be done under
> >> the current legislation -
>
> > Disabling certainly isn't. That's a matter for the householder. But I
> > agree that many CORGI fitters think they have this power and will
> > assert it if the householder is willing to be bullied, as many old
> > ladies are. After all, that is how the CORGI fraternity make their
> > money.
>
> I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you here. The engineer is
> legally bound by law to either stick a prohibition notice on a dangerous
> appliance *and* if he suspects that the appliance will continue to be used
> [1] - disable it - and than can include vents where they are blocked. the
> engineer will certainly be prosecuted if a death or near death occurs
> because of his failure to take action.
If this is your perspective, I would appreciate a link to legislation.
CORGI, incidentally, quote what they would like the law to say, not
what the law actually says.
As far as I am concerned, a gas man is obviously bound to take
reasonable steps to ensure a dangerous appliance is not used, either
by the customer or any third party. This may be in the form of
applying stickers, or disabling the appliance. However, he can only do
this with the customer's implied consent - that is, he can only do
this in the event the customer has invited him to service the
appliance. If the customer withdraws this consent, and forbids him
from taking any steps in relation to the appliance, then he must do
nothing to the appliance and leave the premises.
You understand, surely, that there is a difference between what a gas
man "must" do when servicing an appliance with the permission of the
customer, and what he "must" do when he is ordered to do nothing in
relation to the appliance. Also there is a difference between what the
*law* says the gas man must do, and what CORGI say he "must" do as
good practice or as a condition of keeping his CORGI registration.
> With regards to "After all, that is how the CORGI fraternity make their
> money" - most CORGI fitters are honest and competent and not of the 'house
> of horrors' brigade - certainly the ones that I have dealt with over very
> many years have been.
Most fitters are honest, that much is true. Unfortunately, CORGI are
NOT honest. They completely misrepresent the law both to their members
and to the public at large - that is, they lie about the law.
Big Les Wade
>
>No he MUST disconnect it:
>
>http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk/PH&S%20Gas%20interlocks%20in%20kitchens.html
>
># It should be understood that the CORGI Registered person (Not the
>company) making the inspection and signing the certificate is
>personally liable for any unsafe conditions. Furthermore if they do not
>issue a Not to Current Standards (NCS) notification or sticker the
>equipment as “unsafe do not use” and physically disconnect it from
>the gas supply they could be prosecuted for negligence personally in
>extreme circumstances.
That's a commercial firm's web page. It has no legal authority
whatsoever.
--
Les
YAPH
> As far as I am concerned, a gas man is obviously bound to take
> reasonable steps to ensure a dangerous appliance is not used, either
> by the customer or any third party. This may be in the form of
> applying stickers, or disabling the appliance. However, he can only do
> this with the customer's implied consent - that is, he can only do
> this in the event the customer has invited him to service the
> appliance. If the customer withdraws this consent, and forbids him
> from taking any steps in relation to the appliance, then he must do
> nothing to the appliance and leave the premises.
If the engineer assesses the situation as "Immdediately Dangerous" - in
this case if the appliance is showing signs of incomplete combuston due to
the inadequate ventilation - then he *must* either, with permission,
disconnect the appliance (e.g. cut the gas pipe to it and cap it off) or,
if the customer refuses permission, report it to the supplier (who will
make sure either the appliance or the property gets gut off).
If the engineer assesses the situation as "At Risk" - in this case it
would be inadequate ventilation but the appliance burning satisfactorily -
then he must inform the occupier and the 'responsible person' (owner,
agent etc) and, with permission, turn off (not cap off) the appliance. If
permission is denied he does not have to do any more.
> Most fitters are honest, that much is true. Unfortunately, CORGI are
> NOT honest. They completely misrepresent the law both to their members
> and to the public at large - that is, they lie about the law.
I'm sure you aren't lying and can therefore can give some examples please.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
You'll make some woman a fine husband, Dr Frankenstein
YAPH
> Did you know, then, that any person can carry out gas work, not just
> those who are CORGI registered? A person need only be CORGI registered
> if he does gas work in a commercial fashion (I have broken this law on
> occasion however lol).
>
> Of course, I do stress that a general requirement still applies, which
> is that any person who carries out gas work must do so in a
> "competent" fashion.
I do indeed know that. I even know where in the regulations this
requirement is defined :-). (It is actually a requirement that the
person doing the work be "competent", not that they do the work in "a
competent fashion" for what it's worth.) This comes up frequently on
another newsgroup I frequent. The difficulty as I see it is how do you
*know* you're competent? Problem is that you don't know what you don't
know, so you may be able to put in a gas supply to an appliance and fit it
as per the manufacturer's instructions but they don't tell you everything
you need to know to do the job safely. Ironically it's probably easier for
an untrained but generally skillful, intelligent and conscientious DIY-er
to put in a (room-sealed) boiler safely than a gas fire or cooker.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
The clairvoyants' meeting has been cancelled due to unforseen circumstances.
Big Les Wade
<?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
> posted
>Big Les Wade wrote:
>> A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> posted
>>>
>>> Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
>>> allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
>>> the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
>>
>> How do you mean, "has to"? Specifically what compels him?
>
>The law.
Cite chapter and verse please?
>>>
>>> I had this conversation yesterday with a Corgi man I was working
>>> with.
>>
>> And do you regard him as an unbiased authority?
>
>That is irrelevant - he is the 'expert' and the decision is his to take -
Only if the law says so. Does it?
>obviously he should make the customer aware of this.
>
>>> If he left a house with a faulty boiler (say), and it then blew up,
>>> or killed the occupants through a gas leak, then it is he who is
>>> liable,
>>
>> Liable to whom and for what? Why should my mother in law care what he
>> is liable for?
>
>The law - and if he doesn't disconnect your mother-in-law's faulty fire and
>she ends up in hospital or dead as a result...
But that never happens, does it? If she was going to be poisoned by a
faulty fire she'd have already died before he came to look at it.
>>> hence to conform to the guidelines, he must turn off the gas.
>>
>> What guidelines, and what legal force do they have in the sense of
>> legal penalties imposed on people who do or don't do certain things?
>
>The law of the land - and imprisonment can occur if a fatality arises.
Well, let's see it.
>>> If the owner then turns the offending item back on, then that is up
>>> to them,
>>
>> No, it's the *owner's gas fire, and it is the *owner* who has the
>> right to decide whether it is turned off or not.
>
>May be the owners gas fire, but the law says the engineer must make the unit
>safe.
>
>>> but they will have been warned to not use the appliance until it
>>> is fixed.
>>
>> That would be fine. Cutting off a gas fire to leave an old lady
>> freezing, to avoid the minuscule risk of CO poisoning, is not.
>
>Was there any other form of heating in the house (in another room perhaps or
>even a boiler and full central heating), and did the engineer suggest a
>source of temporary heating that could be used until a repair was carried
>out (that certainly would have been the case if it was a council property if
>the defective appliance was the *only* source of heat)?
>
>Again there is a lack of information, and as for the "minuscule risk of CO
>poisoning", then I wonder what your response would have been if the MiL had
>been overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning because the engineer hadn't done
>his job?
How many people in Britain are gassed by CO each year? I'll tell you;
it's about 30. How many old people die of hypothermia each year? Tens of
thousands. Which is more dangerous?
--
Les
YAPH
> Cash
>>Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> posted
>>>>
>>>> Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
>>>> allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
>>>> the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
>>>
>>> How do you mean, "has to"? Specifically what compels him?
>>
>>The law.
>
> Cite chapter and verse please?
GSIUR (SI1998/2451) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982451.htm
sections 34(3) and 35 would seem to provide that compulsion:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
34 (3) Any person engaged in carrying out any work in relation to a gas
main, service pipe, service pipework, gas storage vessel or gas fitting
who knows or has reason to suspect that any gas appliance cannot be used
without constituting a danger to any person shall forthwith take all
reasonably practicable steps to inform the responsible person for the
premises in which the appliance is situated and, where different, the
owner of the appliance or, where neither is reasonably practicable, in
the case of an appliance supplied with liquefied petroleum gas, the
supplier of gas to the appliance, or, in any other case, the transporter.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
So for a natural gas appliance I'd be obliged to report it to the
Emergency Service Provider (0800 111 999 - formerly Transco)
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
PART F
MAINTENANCE
Duties of employers and self-employed persons
35. It shall be the duty of every employer or self-employed person to
ensure that any gas appliance, installation pipework or flue
installed at any place of work under his control is maintained in a
safe condition so as to prevent risk of injury
to any person.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
But as I admitted earlier in this thread IANAL. Whether you should
employ a lawyer or a registered gas installer to work on your gas
appliances is another question. :-)
>>>> I had this conversation yesterday with a Corgi man I was working
>>>> with.
>>>
>>> And do you regard him as an unbiased authority?
>>
>>That is irrelevant - he is the 'expert' and the decision is his to take
>>-
>
> Only if the law says so. Does it?
I think so. The law's there for everyone to read: you tell me!
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
There's nowt as queer as folk.
Especially other folk.
Big Les Wade
>GSIUR (SI1998/2451) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982451.htm
>sections 34(3) and 35 would seem to provide that compulsion:
>
>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>34 (3) Any person engaged in carrying out any work in relation to a gas
> main, service pipe, service pipework, gas storage vessel or gas fitting
> who knows or has reason to suspect that any gas appliance cannot be used
> without constituting a danger to any person shall forthwith take all
> reasonably practicable steps to inform the responsible person for the
> premises in which the appliance is situated and, where different, the
> owner of the appliance or, where neither is reasonably practicable, in
> the case of an appliance supplied with liquefied petroleum gas, the
> supplier of gas to the appliance, or, in any other case, the transporter.
That is a compulsion to inform or report, not disconnect.
>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>So for a natural gas appliance I'd be obliged to report it to the
>Emergency Service Provider (0800 111 999 - formerly Transco)
No, you report to the occupant or owner of the premises.
>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>PART F
>
>MAINTENANCE
>
>Duties of employers and self-employed persons
> 35. It shall be the duty of every employer or self-employed person to
> ensure that any gas appliance, installation pipework or flue
> installed at any place of work under his control is maintained in a
> safe condition so as to prevent risk of injury
> to any person.
Part F of what? This para is talking about the duties of an employer
regarding the workplace. It is nothing to do with the situation where a
maintenance man is visiting a household under contract to the
householder.
--
Les
YAPH
> YAPH <use...@yaph.co.uk> posted
>>GSIUR (SI1998/2451) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982451.htm
>>sections 34(3) and 35 would seem to provide that compulsion:
>>
>>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>34 (3) Any person engaged in carrying out any work in relation to a gas
...
> That is a compulsion to inform or report, not disconnect.
True ...
>>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>PART F
>>
>>MAINTENANCE
>>
>>Duties of employers and self-employed persons
>> 35. It shall be the duty of every employer or self-employed person to
>> ensure that any gas appliance, installation pipework or flue
>> installed at any place of work under his control is maintained in a
>> safe condition so as to prevent risk of injury
>> to any person.
>
> Part F of what?
Of the GSIUR, to which I provided a link earlier.
> ... This para is talking about the duties of an employer
... or self-employed person ...
> regarding the workplace. It is nothing to do with the situation where a
> maintenance man is visiting a household under contract to the
> householder.
I think it is. If I am engaged by the householder to do work for them then
that is, for the time being, the "place of work under my control" and I
would seem to have a duty to ensure that everything is "maintained in a
safe condition so as to prevent the risk of injury". "The workplace"
doesn't make much sense in the context of a self-employed person
otherwise, though the wording "Duties of employers and self-employed
persons" (rather than "...employed and self-employed..." as used elsewhere
in the regs) doesn't make much sense either.
However I have to agree that the regs don't clearly and unambiguously
spell out a duty to installers to make safe dangerous appliances. As it
happens I'll be at my gas training centre tomorrow so I'll pose it to the
tutors there. Not that they're lawyers either, though ...
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
I can't stand intolerance
Ste
>
> If the engineer assesses the situation as "Immdediately Dangerous" - in
> this case if the appliance is showing signs of incomplete combuston due to
> the inadequate ventilation - then he *must* either, with permission,
> disconnect the appliance (e.g. cut the gas pipe to it and cap it off) or,
> if the customer refuses permission, report it to the supplier (who will
> make sure either the appliance or the property gets gut off).
Seems reasonable. I imagined this to be the case even before I
consulted the regulations.
> If the engineer assesses the situation as "At Risk" - in this case it
> would be inadequate ventilation but the appliance burning satisfactorily -
> then he must inform the occupier and the 'responsible person' (owner,
> agent etc) and, with permission, turn off (not cap off) the appliance. If
> permission is denied he does not have to do any more.
If the appliance is burning satisfactorily, then it must have adequate
ventilation. But I think the crux of the matter is clear here, which
is that a gas man has no power to take steps in relation an appliance
without the customer's permission.
> > Most fitters are honest, that much is true. Unfortunately, CORGI are
> > NOT honest. They completely misrepresent the law both to their members
> > and to the public at large - that is, they lie about the law.
>
> I'm sure you aren't lying and can therefore can give some examples please.
A brief check of the CORGI site shows their advice has changed and has
been toned down slightly since I last visited many years ago. Once
upon a time, their site came with a warning to this effect "it is
illegal to carry out gas work unless you are CORGI registered", and
this is in accordance with the impression that gas men themselves tend
to give to householders.
Of course, they might now qualify that statement by defining "gas
work" as "steps taken in relation to a gas appliance or gas fitting in
the course of employment or pursuant to a commercial arrangement".
Ste
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:45:10 +0000, Ste wrote:
> > Did you know, then, that any person can carry out gas work, not just
> > those who are CORGI registered? A person need only be CORGI registered
> > if he does gas work in a commercial fashion (I have broken this law on
> > occasion however lol).
>
> > Of course, I do stress that a general requirement still applies, which
> > is that any person who carries out gas work must do so in a
> > "competent" fashion.
>
> I do indeed know that. I even know where in the regulations this
> requirement is defined :-)
I admit I forget where in the regulations this gem is hidden.
> (It is actually a requirement that the
> person doing the work be "competent", not that they do the work in "a
> competent fashion" for what it's worth.)
For the purposes here, I felt it covered all possibilities if I simply
said there is a requirement to carry out the work "in a competent
fashion".
> This comes up frequently on
> another newsgroup I frequent. The difficulty as I see it is how do you
> *know* you're competent?
Generally, the test of competence is whether you can carry out the
work in accordance with the regulations. Of course, if you don't know
the regulations and how to effect them in practice, then you are not
competent.
> Problem is that you don't know what you don't
> know, so you may be able to put in a gas supply to an appliance and fit it
> as per the manufacturer's instructions but they don't tell you everything
> you need to know to do the job safely.
I remember a prominent American politician was ridiculed for referring
to "unknown unknowns". You're right though, the manufacturer's
instructions certainly aren't comprehensive.
I would also say the average man on the street is competent to perform
gas work of this kind only: removing an existing appliance from the
gas supply where the connection is by bayonet fitting, and then
replacing the *same* appliance in reverse fashion. In order to do any
gas work beyond this in a competent fashion, you are required to
perform various tests and inspections on both the appliance and the
gas installation as a whole - most people would not be able to do
this.
Just for example, to perform a leak test on the whole installation,
these would be the rough steps:
1) turn the gas off
2) open the test nipple at the meter (a small amount of gas will
escape)
3) attach the manometer
4) *slowly* allow gas to flow until the level in the manometer stops
rising
5) make a note of the manometer level
6) turn the gas off (nearly forgot to include this step here lol)
7) remove the manometer (small amount of gas will again escape)
8) attach the manometer
9) *slowly* allow the gas to flow until the level in the manometer is
*slightly (about one notch) short* of the previous reading.
10) monitor the level over a period of 2 minutes
11) note the difference in level
12) turn the gas off, remove the manometer, close the test nipple,
turn gas on, and spray the nipple to check for leaks.
Now, in relation to reading at step 11, regulations define how much
gas escape is acceptable. In the case of pipework alone, no leaks are
permissible. In the case of pipework with appliances attached, there
is a permissible level of escape (basically a coupe of notches, though
the exact figure I do not recall at this time).
Now, if any person proposing to carry out gas work does not understand
this testing procedure, then on this point alone they can rule
themselves out as being "competent" for the purpose of the
Regulations, and in all likelihood any work they perform will be
dangerous. Also, if you can follow this procedure but do not
understand the significance of performing step 4 before step 9, then
again I would have serious doubts about your competence in general.
And do not think that the requirements stop there - amongst other
things you must be able to test appliances for gas flow and adequate
pressure at the burners, and know and be able to comply with all kinds
of ancilliary regulations.
In short, you do not have to be CORGI registered to be a competent
person and carry out gas work, but you must know as much about gas as
a gas man, and you must have the tools that a gas man carries. If you
do not know as much as he, then you must learn, and if you do not
carry his tools, then you must purchase them. If you do not, then you
are not competent to carry out gas work.
I hope this clarifies for people just how onerous it is to demonstrate
"competence".
> Ironically it's probably easier for
> an untrained but generally skillful, intelligent and conscientious DIY-er
> to put in a (room-sealed) boiler safely than a gas fire or cooker.
I wouldn't have thought so, although the fact that the appliance is
"room sealed" probably prevents many of the hazards that would
otherwise present themselves.
Big Les Wade
>I would also say the average man on the street is competent to perform
>gas work of this kind only: removing an existing appliance from the gas
>supply where the connection is by bayonet fitting, and then replacing
>the *same* appliance in reverse fashion.
Talking of which reminds me of one of the most convincing proofs that
CORGI is a criminal conspiracy against the public. These bayonet
connectors were developed specifically to enable householders to connect
new gas appliances to the supply without needing an engineer. But have
you noticed that new gas cookers these days are supplied *without* a
bayonet-fitting hose? Now, why do you think that is?
--
Les
Ste
> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> posted
On the contrary Les. What I said was that the average man on the
street is competent to remove an *existing* appliance, and later
reconnect the *same* appliance; the bayonet connector was in fact
designed so that an average person with no special skill could safely
disconnect and reconnect a free-standing appliance.
The installation of a *new* appliance on the other hand must be in
accordance with current regulations, and you must therefore be
competent to perform the installation.
Big Les Wade
Why is it more difficult to connect a new gas cooker than an old one
with an identical bayonet connector?
--
Les
YAPH
Because you are wrong about the purpose of the bayonet connection. It is
to allow an existing appliance (generally slot-in cookers, though also
tumble-driers) to be removed for cleaning, and then refitting.
A new appliance must (by law) always be commissioned by a competent person.
This involves not just fitting a new hose with the appropriate type of
bayonet connector (there are different types in use) but fitting, if
necessary, a security chain or anti-tilt bracket, checking the ventilation
and positioning of the appliance (e.g. that some numpty hasn't naffed up
the ventilation by changing windows or building a conservatory onto the
kitchen, or fitting wall units overhanging the cooker - it does happen)
and checking the proper operation of the cooker (including that the
suppliers, Messrs FlybyniteOnline, have supplied an appliance with the
correct burners) and its safety devices (oven flame sense and regulation,
flame sense on the rings if it's going into a flat) etc. And of course
notifying the installation to Building Control in accordance with Part L
of the Building Regs.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
What do you mean, talking about it isn't oral sex?
Big Les Wade
>
>Because you are wrong about the purpose of the bayonet connection. It is
>to allow an existing appliance (generally slot-in cookers, though also
>tumble-driers) to be removed for cleaning, and then refitting.
Didn't know you could get gas tumble driers, you live and learn :)
>
>A new appliance must (by law) always be commissioned by a competent person.
>This involves not just fitting a new hose with the appropriate type of
>bayonet connector (there are different types in use) but fitting, if
>necessary, a security chain or anti-tilt bracket, checking the ventilation
>and positioning of the appliance (e.g. that some numpty hasn't naffed up
>the ventilation by changing windows or building a conservatory onto the
>kitchen, or fitting wall units overhanging the cooker - it does happen)
But usually the new cooker will be replacing an old one, so all these
things will already have been done. And the fitting of wall units or
conservatories could be done at any time without a new cooker having to
be supplied or a gas man having to attend at all.
>and checking the proper operation of the cooker (including that the
>suppliers, Messrs FlybyniteOnline, have supplied an appliance with the
>correct burners) and its safety devices (oven flame sense and regulation,
>flame sense on the rings if it's going into a flat) etc.
I bought my cooker from John Lewis. The manufacturer, Cannon, seems to
have checked all this stuff when they made it.
> And of course
>notifying the installation to Building Control in accordance with Part L
>of the Building Regs.
When replacing an existing cooker?
--
Les
YAPH
> Didn't know you could get gas tumble driers, you live and learn :)
Excellent: I dread to think what our leccy bill would have been if we'd
bought an electric one. If I could have afforded it I understand there are
a new generation of very efficient ones coming onto the market based on, I
assume, dehumidifier technology. And you can DIY a dryer out of a
dehumidifier (£80 B&Q) with clothes stacked around it on horses with a
tent of bubble-wrap over all, and it's supposed to dry a wash load
overnight. But the machine is more convenient :-)
> But usually the new cooker will be replacing an old one, so all these
> things will already have been done. And the fitting of wall units or
> conservatories could be done at any time without a new cooker having to
> be supplied or a gas man having to attend at all.
No, but it does give a chance for these things to be picked up.
> I bought my cooker from John Lewis. The manufacturer, Cannon, seems to
> have checked all this stuff when they made it.
Not everybody buys known-brand cookers from John Lewis, and even
known-brand manufacturers make mistakes. John Lewis aren't going to unpack
the cooker and check the gas rate.
>> And of course
>>notifying the installation to Building Control in accordance with Part L
>>of the Building Regs.
>
> When replacing an existing cooker?
Yes, as I understand it.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
Many hands make light work. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
YAPH
> However I have to agree that the regs don't clearly and unambiguously
> spell out a duty to installers to make safe dangerous appliances. As it
> happens I'll be at my gas training centre tomorrow so I'll pose it to the
> tutors there. Not that they're lawyers either, though ...
They weren't even there; bunked the day off due to the snow!
However I asked CORGI technical who pointed to the HSC's 'Approved Code
Of Practice and Guidance' book "Safety in the installation and use of gas
systems and appliances" ISBN 0-7176-1635-5 (not in the public domain or
online AFAIK). "This Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) ... gives practical
advice to those with responsibilitues under the Gas Safety (Installation
and USe) Regulations 1998 .... Each regulation is ... followed by any
associated ACOP which the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has approved
under section 16 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1994...". It is
this publication which imposes on installers the duty to make safe
dangerous appliances which I described earlier in this discussion.
So there you have it: HaSaWA 1994, section 16. Apparently ...
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
Question Authority
Big Les Wade
Umm. If we can't read it or check its provenance, it's no good.
--
Les
Conspiracy theorists believe that officials sometimes mislead the public to
conceal wrongdoing. Realists do not believe in conspiracy theories.
Ste
>
> >Because you are wrong about the purpose of the bayonet connection. It is
> >to allow an existing appliance (generally slot-in cookers, though also
> >tumble-driers) to be removed for cleaning, and then refitting.
>
> Didn't know you could get gas tumble driers, you live and learn :)
Neither did I. Then again, you should see how many people today react
when you suggest the existence of freezers that run on gas.
> >A new appliance must (by law) always be commissioned by a competent person.
> >This involves not just fitting a new hose with the appropriate type of
> >bayonet connector (there are different types in use) but fitting, if
> >necessary, a security chain or anti-tilt bracket, checking the ventilation
> >and positioning of the appliance (e.g. that some numpty hasn't naffed up
> >the ventilation by changing windows or building a conservatory onto the
> >kitchen, or fitting wall units overhanging the cooker - it does happen)
>
> But usually the new cooker will be replacing an old one, so all these
> things will already have been done.
On the contary. The installation may have become dangerous since the
previous appliance was first fitted, or regulations may now deem
certain installations dangerous where previously they were not (and
there are many appliances still around that were first fitted 30 years
ago or more).
Alternatively, the new appliance may itself be dangerous because of a
fault (e.g. manufacturing fault, or damage-in-transit), or it may not
be an equivalent replacement (e.g. may require greater supply of gas),
or as John hints at, for example, there are different injectors
supplied for different types of gas (many people would completely
overlook this).
It's just completely unreasonable to expect an ordinary person to know
and check for all the potential pitfalls. One of my uncles a few years
back decided to fit a new hob to replace his old one. He is a former
mechanic, a competent DIYer, and has a university education.
Unfortunately, it was only AFTER waking up the following morning and
finding the family home full of gas that he decided to go out and
purchase leak detector fluid.
As far as I'm concerned, it is quite reasonable to say to people this:
you can do your own gas work, but you must be competent, you must
comply with the regulations, and you must test the installation for
leaks. As far as I'm concerned, people who propose not to test the
installation for leaks should be put out of their house and the door
locked, while a professional remains inside the house and installs the
gas appliance safely.
> And the fitting of wall units or
> conservatories could be done at any time without a new cooker having to
> be supplied or a gas man having to attend at all.
I'd shut your mouth before it *is* necessary to employ a gas man in
those circumstances. Lol.
But on a serious note, a balance must be struck. If a person has
fitted new wall units, or built a conservatory, and as a result has
made a gas appliance potentially dangerous to operate, then they have
broken the law. The fact that there was no specific requirement to
have the setup inspected by a gas man, does not mean you do not have
to comply with the law.
> > And of course
> >notifying the installation to Building Control in accordance with Part L
> >of the Building Regs.
>
> When replacing an existing cooker?
I would be surprised if anyone notifies Building Control of anything.
Old Codger
> YAPH <use...@yaph.co.uk> posted
>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:15:14 +0000, YAPH wrote:
>>
>>> However I have to agree that the regs don't clearly and unambiguously
>>> spell out a duty to installers to make safe dangerous appliances. As it
>>> happens I'll be at my gas training centre tomorrow so I'll pose it to
>>> the
>>> tutors there. Not that they're lawyers either, though ...
>>
>> They weren't even there; bunked the day off due to the snow!
>>
>> However I asked CORGI technical who pointed to the HSC's 'Approved Code
>> Of Practice and Guidance' book "Safety in the installation and use of gas
>> systems and appliances" ISBN 0-7176-1635-5 (not in the public domain or
>> online AFAIK). "This Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) ... gives practical
>> advice to those with responsibilitues under the Gas Safety (Installation
>> and USe) Regulations 1998 .... Each regulation is ... followed by any
>> associated ACOP which the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has approved
>> under section 16 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1994...". It is
>> this publication which imposes on installers the duty to make safe
>> dangerous appliances which I described earlier in this discussion.
>>
>> So there you have it: HaSaWA 1994, section 16. Apparently ...
>
> Umm. If we can't read it or check its provenance, it's no good.
>
(http://www.hsebooks.com/Books/product/product.asp?catalog_name=HSEBooks&category_name=&product_id=3159&cookie_test=1)
or the NI version can be read on line at:
http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/gaswise/downloads/Gas%20Safety%20Installation%20and%20Use%20Regs%201998%20ACOP%20for%20NI%202004%20Regs.pdf)
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
YAPH
> It can be purchased from HSE books
> (http://www.hsebooks.com/Books/product/product.asp?catalog_name=HSEBooks&category_name=&product_id=3159&cookie_test=1)
> or the NI version can be read on line at:
> http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/gaswise/downloads/Gas%20Safety%20Installation%20and%20Use%20Regs%201998%20ACOP%20for%20NI%202004%20Regs.pdf)
Well fock may! That seems to be the exact same document as the paper copy
I have. Except you've got to read it in an Ulster accent of course ;-)
Old Codger
Sleepalot
>Cash
><?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
> > posted
>>Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> posted
>>>>
>>>> Actually, if a CORGI Registered man finds a leak above the maximum
>>>> allowed level, or a faulty appliance, he does have to either turn off
>>>> the gas supply, or isolate the faulty appliance.
>>>
>>> How do you mean, "has to"? Specifically what compels him?
>>
>>The law.
>
>Cite chapter and verse please?
If no other legislation existed, the Health and Safety at Work Act
would cover it. It basically says you can't endanger yourself or
others by your acts or ommissions.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Sleepalot
>The lack of oxygen argument is just laughable; for a fire to consume
>enough oxygen to have a significant imopact it would have to be a
>helluva fire in a largely sealed room, and even then the fire would soon
>fail to thrive.
(I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding info for context.)
For the purpose of producing heat, you are (iirc) a 10 Watt
machine: a piece of toast keeps you warm for about 3 hours.
The fire is a multi-kilowatt device: it produces several hundred
times more heat than you do, and consequently consumes
more fuel and more air, and of course runs much hotter.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Ste
I've just nearly spat my chewing gum out. It surely went without
saying, "of course", that a fire "runs much hotter" than the human
body!