British Gas condmened boiler unreasonably
tonyjeffs
'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
1. IThe boiler is obsolete
2. Parts for it are no longer available
3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
The third and fourh are in my view are easy to remedy; '3' show the
inspector the air vent that he didn't see. If this is inadeute, fit a
new air vent to the room, and
'4' buy a CO detector.
The first two are what concern me. I don't believe they are valid
reasons to attach a condemned notice.
What does it mean to say the boiler is obsolete? Does it mean that
that it is not working properly in some unspecified way, or that it is
a health or safety risk? I don't think it does. I think he needs to
specify a fault or risk.
Does it matter whether parts are no longer available? Clearly it would
matter if parts were needed to remedy a fault, b he has not said that,
so this is not a reson for condemnation.
In my view, my sis would be wise to replace her 30 year old boiler,
but that is a separate issue.
Should she fix the two easy ones and challenge British Gas over the
others?
tony
the Omrud
> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
>
> 1. IThe boiler is obsolete
> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
>
> The third and fourh are in my view are easy to remedy; '3' show the
> inspector the air vent that he didn't see. If this is inadeute, fit a
> new air vent to the room, and
> '4' buy a CO detector.
What is a "required" CO detector? Is your sister's boiler in rented
accommodation? I'm not aware of any requirement to have a CO detector
in a residential property. We certainly haven't got one.
> The first two are what concern me. I don't believe they are valid
> reasons to attach a condemned notice.
> What does it mean to say the boiler is obsolete? Does it mean that
> that it is not working properly in some unspecified way, or that it is
> a health or safety risk? I don't think it does. I think he needs to
> specify a fault or risk.
> Does it matter whether parts are no longer available? Clearly it would
> matter if parts were needed to remedy a fault, b he has not said that,
> so this is not a reson for condemnation.
>
> In my view, my sis would be wise to replace her 30 year old boiler,
> but that is a separate issue.
>
> Should she fix the two easy ones and challenge British Gas over the
> others?
Why were BG looking at the boiler? Was there a fault? Good as their
mechanics are, they are not all entirely proficient at written English -
it may be that the person who surveyed the boiler found the fault which
had been reported, but didn't think of putting it on the notice since
the householder presumably already knows about it.
--
David
Tim S
> tonyjeffs wrote:
>> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
>> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
>>
>> 1. IThe boiler is obsolete
>> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
>> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
>> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
I'm Not a CORGI person, but point 4 would be enough reason AFAIK to mandate
a "do not use". Is it a room sealed boiler (ie balanced flue or something
related that takes it's air from outside) as that affects its need for
ventilation?
However, points 1 and 2 are irrelevant (until the boiler goes wrong and
connot be repaired, of course).
>>
>> The third and fourh are in my view are easy to remedy; '3' show the
>> inspector the air vent that he didn't see. If this is inadeute, fit a
>> new air vent to the room, and
>> '4' buy a CO detector.
Agree.
Cheers
Tim
GB
> the Omrud coughed up some electrons that declared:
>
>> tonyjeffs wrote:
>>> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
>>> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
>>>
>>> 1. IThe boiler is obsolete
>>> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
>>> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
>
>
>
>>> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
>
> I'm Not a CORGI person, but point 4 would be enough reason AFAIK to
> mandate a "do not use". Is it a room sealed boiler (ie balanced flue
> or something related that takes it's air from outside) as that
> affects its need for ventilation?
>
> However, points 1 and 2 are irrelevant (until the boiler goes wrong
> and connot be repaired, of course).
Oh, now you have got me started on British Gas, who are the bane of my life
as I am a landlord with a bulk contract with them. All I can say in my
defence for using them is that I cannot find anybody any better. They seem
to have a penchant for condemning boilers. I suspect, but cannot prove, that
their engineers are on a bonus for doing this.
In particular, they seem to have it in for open flue boilers. Balanced flue
is the flavour of the month. That is, of course, quite an important
feature, as balanced flue boilers are room-sealed, and the chance of
poisoning from carbon monoxide is much reduced. As this boiler required
"adequate ventilation", it must be open flue. It is strange, though, how a
boiler which is fine one year gets condemned the next year, don't you think?
And as has been said, there is no requirement at all for a carbon monoxide
detector.
Although the ventilation requirements may change in the current regulations,
there is no need to update the ventilation for an existing installation.
Consequently, the most likely explanation for this (leaving aside the simply
scurrilous suggestion that the engineer needed a bonus) is that he did not
see the ventilation. This is very odd, as he knew perfectly well that the
boiler had been passed in the past, so he must have known that ventilation
would be there unless it has been blocked up in the last year or so. So,
failing to spot the existing ventilation was simply negligence, at best, or
wilful at worst. Fraud?
Having said all that, a modern condensing boiler will pay for itself in
reduced gas charges remarkably quickly in most cases, and it is also safer.
Blah
Invisible Man
CO detector is not generally required in an owner occupied house.
Contributors to the newsgroup UK.diy are generally of the opinion that
BG go looking for excuses to replace boilers. Often they quote
outrageous prices. Which? quote examples of BG charging around twice as
much as others to replace boilers.
GB
> BG go looking for excuses to replace boilers. Often they quote
> outrageous prices. Which? quote examples of BG charging around twice
> as much as others to replace boilers.
I must be lucky, because they generally only quote me about 50%-60% more.
Ray
"tonyjeffs" <tonyj...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba0ce42-7c80-4b8a...@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
>
> 1. IThe boiler is obsolete
a common comment from BG in an attempt to sell a new boiler
> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
the main parts such as the gas valve will be available and if not some other
valve will no doubt fit, the case seal may well be a different matter
> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
since when was this a requirement?
> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
is the appliance operating safely? is so the appliance should be marked "at
risk" and left switched off. The OP doesnt mention if the boiler was
disconnected from the gas supply by BG on the visit.
peterwn
> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
>
> 1. IThe boiler is obsolete
> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
>
> The third and fourh are in my view are easy to remedy; '3' show the
> inspector the air vent that he didn't see. If this is inadeute, fit a
> new air vent to the room, and
> '4' buy a CO detector.
>
> The first two are what concern me. I don't believe they are valid
> reasons to attach a condemned notice.
There is something wrong with the design of the paperwork or staff
training.
Advisory comments should not be mixed in with statutory items and also
it seems crazy to list the 'advisory' aspects first.
It is worth noting that British Gas would most probably prefer not to
have this enforcement responsibility lumbered on them by Government
decree, but as they do, they must undertake this diligently or could
face serious legal problems if something blows up or someone dies of
CO poisoning. As it is BG has recently been shaken by the Appeal
Court over harassment of alleged debtors through back office stuff-
ups.
the Omrud
At my annual service the BG man (always a different one) usually says
that he has to recommend that I consider a more efficient boiler but
that actually there's nothing wrong with the one we've got, and it isn't
really worth replacing.
When the supervisor phones to check whether the man had "discussed the
possibility of a new boiler", I can honestly say "Yes".
--
David
tonyjeffs
> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
BG visited because my sis applied for a monthly payment gas system
service plan.
She made the mistake of leaving her understandzbly disinterested 20
year old daughter to oversee the visit while sis and bro-in-law were
at work
Re 3; a CO alarm is provided. The daughter didn't know and the
inspector didn't see it.
Re 4; There is a vent in the floor immediately adjacant to the boiler,
in the same cupboard.
The notice says:
Warning.You are advised that this gas equipment has been classified as
‘at risk’. In the interests of safety please do not use it until any
faults have been remedied. Do not remove this label.
I would worry that if they continue to use the boiler and there was a
house fire, their insurznce would not need to pay out.
I guess their solution is to call BG out again reporting that the two
faults are not present, (and therefore in efect remedied)
and ask for the notice to be removed.
But there is still the problem of "at risk". Is it reasonable to say a
boiler is at risk merely because it is 30 years old?
How could she challenge that?
.....
Thanks to all
Blah, thanks for the interesting link.
Tony
Ray
"peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:e41829dd-da5c-4f6b...@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
they are no different to the rest of us corgi guys despite what they might
like to portray
Curious
> Having said all that, a modern condensing boiler will pay for itself in
> reduced gas charges remarkably quickly in most cases, and it is also safer.
As well as not last nearly 30 years and need lots of expensive care,
attention and repairs during its lifetime.
--
I. Curious
YAPH
> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
>
> 1. IThe boiler is obsolete
> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
>
> The third and fourh are in my view are easy to remedy; '3' show the
> inspector the air vent that he didn't see. If this is inadeute, fit a
> new air vent to the room, and
> '4' buy a CO detector.
As others have said 4 is the only valid reason to put on a warning notice
under the Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure. Actually it reminds me
of some of the possible answers in a multiple-choice test (e.g. "What are
valid grounds for assessing an appliance as At Risk?"). There's usually at
least one comical one.
A point to note is that in the last year (I think it was last June or
July) the rules for assessing the correctness of ventilation for open-flue
(aka conventional flue i.e. gases go up a chimney) appliances have
changed. It used to be that anything above about half the
theoretically-required ventilation was "Not to Current Standards" but
basically OK, but now anything below 90% of the calculated value is "At
Risk". And as we all know on this group from previous discussions (!) "At
Risk" means the installer must *with the owner's permission* *switch off*
the appliance. Not *cut off* (or disconnect), and not without their say-so.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
"I used to think correlation implied causation.
Then I took a statistics course and now I don't."
"Sounds as if the statistics course helped."
"Well, maybe."
R. Mark Clayton
before letting BG near it.
They just love to condemn it and then tell you they can fit a new one for
ŁŁŁŁ
"tonyjeffs" <tonyj...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba0ce42-7c80-4b8a...@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
GB
I am not sure how big the gas bill is in this case but just suppose it is
£1000 a year. It is claimed that a condensing boiler will save around 30%
compared to an old-fashioned boiler. So, a new boiler will pay for itself
in about 5 - 7 years, depending on how much it costs to install, and there
really ought not to be any hefty maintenance bills during that time. Even if
it needs replacing after 10 years, it should at least have paid for itself,
whilst of course helping to save the planet.
Roland Perry
Fri, 20 Mar 2009, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>It is claimed that a condensing boiler will save around 30%
>compared to an old-fashioned boiler.
In laboratory conditions. A real installation is likely to be closer to
15-20%
And this is only the case if they run quite cold - with a return water
temperature of around 50 degrees [1]. In midwinter most people would run
their heating a lot higher than that.
[1] If it's too hot, the condensing function doesn't happen, and the
flue gasses retain the "waste heat".
--
Roland Perry
Ian Jackson
<NOTso...@microsoft.com> writes
>
>>
>Even if
>it needs replacing after 10 years, it should at least have paid for itself,
>whilst of course helping to save the planet.
>
Have you taken into account the impact on the planet of the manufacture,
delivery and installation of the new boiler?
--
Ian
Roland Perry
Mar 2009, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>Even if
>>it needs replacing after 10 years, it should at least have paid for itself,
>>whilst of course helping to save the planet.
>>
>Have you taken into account the impact on the planet of the
>manufacture, delivery and installation of the new boiler?
And the disposal of the old one.
--
Roland Perry
GB
Martin Bonner
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <49c36a3e$0$2527$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, GB
> <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> writes
>
>
>
> >Even if
> >it needs replacing after 10 years, it should at least have paid for itself,
> >whilst of course helping to save the planet.
>
> Have you taken into account the impact on the planet of the manufacture,
> delivery and installation of the new boiler?
If we assume that the full cost of the new boiler was spent by the
manufacturer on buying gas to burn, then the fact that boiler will
save money over the long term, means it will save CO2 as well.
Notes:
- There are cheaper ways to generate CO2 than gas (coal for example),
but on the other hand, not all the boiler cost will be spent on CO2
generatioon.
- There are other forms of damage to the environment than CO2
generation, but a) it's the most urgent; b) it's probably the most
significant for boiler manufacture and installation; c) "not all the
boiler cost will be spent on CO2 generation".
Mark
wrote:
However, if they need a lot of expensive repairs during this time,
things would be different. Modern energy efficient boilers are much
more complicated than an old fashioned one and are not immune to
failure.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
BobC
On 19 Mar, 14:15, tonyjeffs <tonyjef...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
>
> 1. IThe boiler is obsolete
So? If I want an obsolete boiler that's up to me.
> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
Been told that one too. But when we needed new parts they suddenly
became available again!
> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
This one came up on the last visit. New regulation. He sold us a
detector there and then for about £30.
> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
The problem here is that they have continually changed the rules.
I've been through various stages of having to increase ventilation.
About 10 years ago BG themselves did the work of fitting vents to the
back door.
Next visit they condemned their own work! Rules had changed.
Couple of years ago condemned again and had the nasty sticker on the
boiler saying mustn't use it. Asked me to to fit a brick air vent in
the wall. Fitted two for when the regs changed again!
>
> The third and fourh are in my view are easy to remedy; '3' show the
> inspector the air vent that he didn't see. If this is inadeute, fit a
> new air vent to the room, and
> '4' buy a CO detector.
Yes. easy.
>
> The first two are what concern me. I don't believe they are valid
> reasons to attach a condemned notice.
> What does it mean to say the boiler is obsolete? Does it mean that
> that it is not working properly in some unspecified way, or that it is
> a health or safety risk? I don't think it does. I think he needs to
> specify a fault or risk.
> Does it matter whether parts are no longer available? Clearly it would
> matter if parts were needed to remedy a fault, b he has not said that,
> so this is not a reson for condemnation.
The condemned notice will have been fitted because of 3 and 4.
You would have a definite complaint against them if they did it for 1
and 2.
>
> In my view, my sis would be wise to replace her 30 year old boiler,
> but that is a separate issue.
>
> Should she fix the two easy ones and challenge British Gas over the
> others?
>
Yes. definitely. I think you'll find though that they haven't
condemned it for 1 and 2, so fix 3 and 4 and should be OK.
Get them to agree beforehand what ventilation work needs doing first.
They still quibbled a bit after I fitted two air bricks when they
asked for one, but gave in.
> tony
My boiler is 20 years old and whilst I know modern ones are more
efficient, that's my choice.
All BG fitters who have serviced it recently have tried to persuade me
to get it changed as it's obsolete/inefficient/can't get the parts.
Except one... He said "I've got the same boiler. Very good. I'm not
changing mine. The parts ARE available. And I'm not listening to BG
telling me to change mine!"
I understand, but this could be wrong, that BG engineers get
commission for new boiler sales. If that is true, says it all!
BobC
A.Lee
> > 1. IThe boiler is obsolete
> > 2. Parts for it are no longer available
> > 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
> > 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
> The notice says:
> Warning.You are advised that this gas equipment has been classified as
> 'at risk'. In the interests of safety please do not use it until any
> faults have been remedied. Do not remove this label.
...
...
> But there is still the problem of "at risk". Is it reasonable to say a
> boiler is at risk merely because it is 30 years old?
> How could she challenge that?
'At Risk' does not mean dangerous.
If it were dangerous, they have no choice but to cut the gas supply to
the appliance, or get the gas board in to cut the supply outside the
house. This subject was done a couple of weeks ago on here.
If, as you say, there is adequate ventilation, (and it appears there is,
as it was not classed as dangerous), then I would get a good, local
CORGI registered plumber/heating engineer in to have a look at it, to
give another view.
The other 3 points are not worthy an 'at risk' sticker. Parts can be got
from many places, BG will not try to hunt down a part for an old boiler,
they will just say they cant get the part, when an Independent plumber
would take the time to find the part.
The 'No CO' detector is rubbish. There is no need for one, even in
rented properties (unless the legislation has changed in the last few
weeks)
If you go from peoples recommendations, and get a good unbiased worker,
then they will tell you their true view of the current boiler.
Where are you? I know one in Leics.
BG have a bad reputation fo doing thsi sort of thing, they are not
breaking the law by saying it is at risk, but it puts fear into people
who respect their view, so they go ahead and get a new boiler, when it
is not really necessary.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
YAPH
> In message <49c36a3e$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 10:10:07 on
> Fri, 20 Mar 2009, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>>It is claimed that a condensing boiler will save around 30%
>>compared to an old-fashioned boiler.
>
> In laboratory conditions. A real installation is likely to be closer to
> 15-20%
Actually the efficiency ratings are SEDBUK which is a fairly realistic
cycle of boiler use over a year. A typical "high efficiency" (condensing)
boiler is about 90%, a reasonably modern "standard efficiency" boiler
about 80% and a dinosaur with a pilot light that stays lit (or the boiler
won't work if it goes out) about 65%.
> And this is only the case if they run quite cold - with a return water
> temperature of around 50 degrees [1]. In midwinter most people would run
> their heating a lot higher than that.
>
> [1] If it's too hot, the condensing function doesn't happen, and the
> flue gasses retain the "waste heat".
Actually a condensing boiler runs at significantly higher efficiency than a
non-condensing one, even when it's not condensing. This is because a
non-condensing one has to be designed to avoid condensing as far as
possible, even when the water in the heating system is cold, and wastes
quite a bit of heat in doing so. A condensing boiler obviously doesn't
have this limitation.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
The astronomer married a star
Roland Perry
Mar 2009, YAPH <use...@yaph.co.uk> remarked:
>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:45:07 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>It is claimed that a condensing boiler will save around 30%
>>>compared to an old-fashioned boiler.
>>
>> In laboratory conditions. A real installation is likely to be closer to
>> 15-20%
>
>Actually the efficiency ratings are SEDBUK which is a fairly realistic
>cycle of boiler use over a year. A typical "high efficiency" (condensing)
>boiler is about 90%, a reasonably modern "standard efficiency" boiler
>about 80% and a dinosaur with a pilot light that stays lit (or the boiler
>won't work if it goes out) about 65%.
So we are in agreement. My 15-20% is very similar to your 10-25%
>Actually a condensing boiler runs at significantly higher efficiency than a
>non-condensing one, even when it's not condensing.
I don't think any of these percentages qualify as "significantly
higher".
--
Roland Perry
Old Codger
> If you go from peoples recommendations, and get a good unbiased worker,
> then they will tell you their true view of the current boiler.
I use an independent guy, even if he does trade as BG Heating, and he
considers our old boiler to be reliable, simple with "nothing to go
wrong". He does *not* recommend changing it.
It did pack up for the first time this winter but, once he had isolated
the fault, he got his lad to get a new gas valve from the van and had it
fixed within about half an hour from the time of his arrival. When I
expressed surprise at his ability to produce a spare for an old boiler
from his van he said that he had plenty of work and therefore didn't
need a return visit to fit a part. He therefore considered it
worthwhile keeping spares for the boilers he serviced, even if they
remained in his van for years.
--
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]
Mr X
"A.Lee" <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote in message
news:1iwvtkg.1nuhtdyygsxnsN%alan@darkroom.+.com...
> The 'No CO' detector is rubbish. There is no need for one, even in
> rented properties (unless the legislation has changed in the last few
> weeks)
on a CO detector or a boiler. Still, your money or your life.
Martyn H
> the Omrud coughed up some electrons that declared:
>
> >> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
> >> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
>
> >> 2. Parts for it are no longer available
> >> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
> >> 4. Adequate ventilation is not provided to the room.
> However, points 1 and 2 are irrelevant (until the boiler goes wrong and
> connot be repaired, of course).
>
unless the service engineer is basically saying i can't service the
boiler becasue i'm not going to be able to get the consumable parts
used in service.
A.Lee
That was not the point of my post.
It was meant to point out that BG cannot condemn a boiler just because
there is no CO detector in the house.
a...@b.invalid
> before letting BG near it.
>
> They just love to condemn it and then tell you they can fit a new one for
I was considering getting a maintenance contract/insurance policy with
British Gas. Their T&C includes repair unless it is "not possible". On
the basis of the comments in this thread I suspect that my very old
boiler would be considered unrepairable even if it isn't. Where would I
stand with getting British Gas to honour their commitment?
They've got a get out clause that says they don't have to repair
anything that they've said needs repairing - "We will not include [...]
Repairing faults [...] if we have told you permanent repairs or
improvements are needed to make sure your appliance or system works
properly."
Invisible Man
easy or quick.
BG used not to take on contracts until they were satisfied the system
was up to scratch. No idea whether that is still the case.
Dr Zoidberg
>. Where would I
> stand with getting British Gas to honour their commitment?
Good luck with that.
BG's engineer came round and actually broke my boiler that had been working fine , and then they claimed it was obsolete with no parts available.
On the "upside" they could fit a new system next week for twice the price of an independent fitter.
Total bunch of robbing gits.
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
Curious
If only it were that simple. Factor in the manufacture of more frequent
boiler changes, the fuel used plus wear and tear on his vehicle by the
installer and so on. The installer who fitted our new boiler last year
made two round trips of 110 mile each way (440+) to get here. :o)
--
I. Curious
Ste
>
> They've got a get out clause that says they don't have to repair
> anything that they've said needs repairing - "We will not include [...]
> Repairing faults [...] if we have told you permanent repairs or
> improvements are needed to make sure your appliance or system works
> properly."
One could counter by arguing that "permanent repairs" and
"improvements" include replacing parts of an old appliance with new
ones, not replacing the whole appliance. I imagine the legal intent of
this term (saying nothing about how it is actually used) is to prevent
customers from repeatedly calling them out to fiddle about with the
same intermittent fault when, by rights, the faulty part should be
permanently repaired or replaced (which I presume in some cases
involves a cost for which they are not responsible).
uberg...@googlemail.com
> British Gas condemned my sisters central hesting boiler, attaching a
> 'do not use' notice, on the following written grounds:
What legal force does this has? What happens if she just, erm, uses
it?
Ian
GB
>
> I use an independent guy, even if he does trade as BG Heating
Google produces rather a lot of references to BG Heating/Heat/etc. Passing
off? I'm surprised the real BG does not have a go at them, actually.
steve robinson
If it goes bang then she could face criminal charges as well as being held liable
for third party damage and injury , its also likely her insurance may be invalidated
if she has cover .
I would get a second opinion though when BG say parts are no longer available or the
biolers obsolete what they really mean is that they can no longer scource the parts
from thier supplier it doesnt always mean that the parts are not obtainable
the Omrud
As it happens, I just completed an online energy usage check which my
council sent. The report suggests that we switch to a more efficient
boiler which will save me an estimated £80 per year. So it's a great
deal more than 10 years for me to break even, and that's ignoring the
environmental cost of manufacturing and delivering the thing and
disposing of the old one.
--
David
YAPH
> As it happens, I just completed an online energy usage check which my
> council sent. The report suggests that we switch to a more efficient
> boiler which will save me an estimated £80 per year. So it's a great
> deal more than 10 years for me to break even, and that's ignoring the
> environmental cost of manufacturing and delivering the thing and
> disposing of the old one.
Indeed. Unless you have a draughty mansion to heat (listed, so you can't
do much to insulate it) you're better off spending a given amount of money
on draught-proofing, insulation and better heating controls than replacing
a standard efficiency - or even dinosaur - boiler wiith a high efficiency
one. However if you do have to replace the boiler anyway, for whatever
reason, then the energy savings from the replacement are a nice
compensation.
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
and Pop Psychologists are from Uranus
Old Codger
BG could stand for all sorts of names. Not sure that British Gas retail
has a monopoly on those initials.
There is a BGplc which, as BG Group, is at the finding and pumping out
of the ground end of the business. It uses the name British Gas outside
the UK but within the UK the name "British Gas" belongs to Centrica.
British Gas retail is part of Centrica and nothing to do with BGplc,
although they all used to be one company.
PCPaul
>> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
>
> This one came up on the last visit. New regulation. He sold us a
> detector there and then for about £30.
>
Does anybody know the truth of this? It seems to me it's either true in
which case the various landlords and householders here could do with
knowing about it, or it's fraud. There doesn't seem to be any grey area.
From <http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/domestic/co.htm>, who ought to know:
============
Does HSE recommend the use of carbon monoxide alarms?
HSE strongly recommends the use of audible carbon monoxide (CO) alarms as
a useful back-up precaution but they must not be regarded as a substitute
for proper installation and maintenance of gas appliances by a CORGI-
registered installer. Before purchasing a CO alarm, always ensure it
complies with British Standard EN 50291 and carries a British or European
approval mark, such as a Kitemark. CO alarms should be installed, checked
and serviced in line with the manufacturer’s instructions.
You can be particularly at risk from CO poisoning when you are asleep,
because you may not be aware of early CO symptoms until it is too late.
Having an audible CO alarm could wake you and save your life.
============
That doesn't look like a 'legally required' to me... (regardless of the
fact I wouldn't be without one - that's not the point.)
the Omrud
We had our annual BG maintenance visit last week. We don't have a CO
detector and the man didn't mention it.
--
David
Old Codger
requirement. A legal requirement would be clearly identified if
mentioned on the HSE website.
Big Les Wade
>I love the way people would rather die in their beds than spend a few quid
>on a CO detector or a boiler.
Since those are not the only two options, your comment is meaningless.
AIUI only a handful of people die of CO poisoning each year. Maybe 15.
You're more likely to perish from a surfeit of lampreys.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
YAPH
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:00:09 +0000, BobC wrote:
>
>>> 3. A required carbon monoxide detector is not provided in the room.
>>
>> This one came up on the last visit. New regulation. He sold us a
>> detector there and then for about £30.
>>
>
> Does anybody know the truth of this? It seems to me it's either true in
> which case the various landlords and householders here could do with
> knowing about it, or it's fraud. There doesn't seem to be any grey area.
I've not heard anything about it either and I'm a registered gas installer
(CORGI -> Gas Safe) who pretty diligently reads the bumph they feed us
about changes in regs. I'm pretty sure it's what we in the industry
refer to by an obscure technical term known as "bollocks" :-)
--
John Stumbles -- http://yaph.co.uk
Death is nature's way of telling you to slow down
Steve Firth
I love the way that dimwits create false dichotomies and then act as if
they were real.
Add your name to that list of fuckwits.
neverwas
> AIUI only a handful of people die of CO poisoning each year. Maybe 15.
> You're more likely to perish from a surfeit of lampreys.
Belated comment......
I looked a little while ago to see if I thought it worth getting CO
detectors
o total deaths in E&W nearer 250 a year thanks to* suicides.
o "unintentional" deaths around 80 a year
See OR 5/2/09 col. WA141
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90205w0001.htm#09020538000597)
*sic - and/or sick
--
Robin
Big Les Wade
Thanks, but that includes deaths from motor vehicle exhausts, which
aren't relevant here. I bet they're the majority too.