RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.tech.heating
Nick Booth
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
create unmoderated newsgroup uk.tech.heating
Newsgroup line:
uk.tech.heating Central Heating / Hot Water Discussion
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.tech.heating
A massive subject with no dedicated group. People seeking advice are
currently posting to various alt.* groups (99% USA or Canada based), or
uk.d-i-y, none of which are 100% appropriate to the subject matter. There
is also no national outlet for discussion between professionals regarding
said subject matter.
Note that I am a CORGI/OFTEC registered Service Engineer, but I have no
products or services to advertise and thus have no vested interest in
the group except as a potential user of it.
CHARTER: uk.tech.heating
The purpose of this group is to discuss the following:
Central heating ideas, problems and solutions - domestic and commercial;
Hot water ideas, problems and solutions - domestic and commercial;
Heating system design and associated plumbing techniques;
Breakdown, service and repair questions and answers.
Gas and Oil safety;
General industry related (CORGI, OFTEC, LPG, Solid Fuel) discussion.
This list is not exhaustive but messages to the group should be relevant to
heating and hot water provision.
Advertising
Advertising is forbidden.
Binaries & Formatting
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which
a pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP)
may be used where authentication is important and should be as
short as possible.
Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some
common newsreaders comply with this, read
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.
Warning. Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until January 2nd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.d-i-y
Proponent:
Nick Booth <angusm...@yahoo.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.2.4-(GNU/Linux)
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBQ6smUGOfGXkh8vHZAQFZoAP6AmBmmWfSaQTB093IBmYe0d0MAIkTsspE
JtWGaigM3HnV9QwIXMZ6TP6bsMICeFbh7EpqW2qdpEie+bK29VbfSrPCufLyr6MC
huA4rftuYNO5VzYVGxNELbIBXU1mHy0wCo1L4RuSnsXXsxbCbYZtQvZyP9661x7v
rX+OomEONww=
=Qt93
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Darren J Longhorn
<angusm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.tech.heating
>
>Newsgroup line:
>uk.tech.heating Central Heating / Hot Water Discussion
Given the noise coming from my central heating system, I think I might
use that!
Mike Tullett
<news:rfd1-uk.tech.heating-20051222202612$5a...@gradwell.net>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.tech.heating
>
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.tech.heating Central Heating / Hot Water Discussion
What an eminently sensible suggestion and I'd support it - fast track even.
--
Mike Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 22/12/2005 23:22:28 UTC
Percy Picacity
news:iacmq15smdnqs6qke...@4ax.com:
That sounds like a good question for uk.d-i-y. I should like to
know a little more about why the proponent thinks:
"People seeking advice are currently posting to various alt.* groups
(99% USA or Canada based), or uk.d-i-y, none of which are 100%
appropriate to the subject matter."
The question I have is whether heating discussions will take
expertise away from uk.d-i-y, or get cross-posted.
--
Percy Picacity
Andrew Gabriel
discussion and then decide. uk.d-i-y is appropriate to most of
the heating related posts which appear in it, i.e. there are
probably rather few heating related posts there which are not
also DIY. I do not follow the alt.* groups which cover heating,
so I can't comment if they carry any significant number of
non-DIY heating posts. Creating a new group is usually not
successful as a mechanism for generating posts that would not
otherwise have appeared elsewhere. So is your expectation that
the heating released posts in uk.d-i-y would all move across
and/or be cross posted to the new group? There are certainly
enough to make a group which took them all viable, but it's not
clear to me if there's much to be gained by separating them out
from uk.d-i-y, nor that there's enough non-DIY heating posts
anywhere to sustain a new group alone. However, I'm happy to be
shown I'm wrong.
A second point: I'm not sure I see why just "heating" -- I would
suggest considering if any new group should cover heating,
ventilation, and cooling. These are really inextricably linked,
particularly if you are interested in engaging professionals
covering commercial work.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Fentoozler
news:43ab3ca8$0$256$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
With regards discussions about Gas and Oil safety, these subject matters
should definitely NOT be associated with DIY of any kind.
With regard to ventilation, yes this is inextricably linked with heating,
therefore unnecessary to be mentioned separately
If by 'cooling' you mean 'air conditioning', then this is not inextricably
linked to the heating trade, a different subject matter and profession
entirely, but I imaging the group may receive posts regarding this matter as
it is 'relevant'.
somebody
<nospam@mapson.?.invalid> writes
>"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:43ab3ca8$0$256$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>>
>> suggest considering if any new group should cover heating,
>> ventilation, and cooling. These are really inextricably linked,
>> particularly if you are interested in engaging professionals
>> covering commercial work.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Gabriel
>
>With regards discussions about Gas and Oil safety, these subject matters
>should definitely NOT be associated with DIY of any kind.
>
>With regard to ventilation, yes this is inextricably linked with heating,
>therefore unnecessary to be mentioned separately
>If by 'cooling' you mean 'air conditioning', then this is not inextricably
>linked to the heating trade, a different subject matter and profession
>entirely, but I imaging the group may receive posts regarding this matter as
>it is 'relevant'.
>
FFS ...
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
Group creation procedures exist for a reason.
Someone
somebody
<and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> writes
>I'm undecided if I support a new group or not -- I'll follow the
>discussion and then decide. uk.d-i-y is appropriate to most of
FFS ...
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
Group creation procedures exist for a reason.
Someone
Geoff Berrow
Gabriel contained the following:
>A second point: I'm not sure I see why just "heating" -- I would
>suggest considering if any new group should cover heating,
>ventilation, and cooling. These are really inextricably linked,
>particularly if you are interested in engaging professionals
>covering commercial work
The name is less than ideal, but is there a better single word than
'heating'?
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Andrew Gabriel
Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> writes:
> Message-ID: <43ab3ca8$0$256$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk> from Andrew
> Gabriel contained the following:
>
>>A second point: I'm not sure I see why just "heating" -- I would
>>suggest considering if any new group should cover heating,
>>ventilation, and cooling. These are really inextricably linked,
>>particularly if you are interested in engaging professionals
>>covering commercial work
>
> The name is less than ideal, but is there a better single word than
> 'heating'?
HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling), but it's
probably a term not well-known outside the trade,
which may make it not a good choice for a newsgroup
name. I suggest leaving worrying about the name until
after there is agreement on the intended topic coverage.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Fentoozler
news:tOZ5kvb+...@somewhere.co.uk...
Sorry, cross-posted by mistake.
Nick Booth
news:Xns9734EF2CEB4...@207.14.113.17...
The only expertise leaving d-i-y will be that related to the heating trade,
not plumbers, not washing machine or tv repair men.
I believe grouping related posts together in one group will make for a far
greater resourse for those trying to find help and even more so, for those
trying to provide help. IMHO, I'm flabberghasted that this group didn't
already exist! If I had a problem with my boiler or fire or water heater, I
personally wouldn't think of searching for d-i-y in the newsgroups, I'd have
seached for a group called 'heating'.
Nick
Dave Plowman (News)
somebody <in...@somewhere.co.uk> wrote:
> FFS ...
> > *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
Bollocks.
--
*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
John Rumm
> With regards discussions about Gas and Oil safety, these subject matters
> should definitely NOT be associated with DIY of any kind.
I would disagree. What would you rather have informed or uninformed DIY
gas work?
> With regard to ventilation, yes this is inextricably linked with heating,
> therefore unnecessary to be mentioned separately
No strong feelings on the subject
> If by 'cooling' you mean 'air conditioning', then this is not inextricably
Cooling is a much bigger topic than just AC
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
John Rumm
> FFS ...
Kindly get back into your pram.
> > *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
And so they are - also crossposted to uk.d-i-y
Nick Booth
news:43ab4d54$0$82672$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> Fentoozler wrote:
>
>> With regards discussions about Gas and Oil safety, these subject matters
>> should definitely NOT be associated with DIY of any kind.
>
> I would disagree. What would you rather have informed or uninformed DIY
> gas work?
>
With all due respect, the general public are well aware that gas work should
only be carried out by a competent person. The only legally recognised way
of being competent is by being CORGI registered. Therefore GAS and DIY
don't mix. Informed or uninformed, a DIYer should not attempt any gas work,
and if thinking of doing so, would post / cross-post their questions to the
heating group. Its like saying there shouldn't be landrover newsgroups, all
mechanical questions should go through the d-i-y group.
On searching (briefly) the d-i-y group, there is no diy gas work being
discussed any way. My group proposal includes provision for professionals
to discuss gas/oil safety, something that would be wholly inappropriate in a
d-i-y group.
>> With regard to ventilation, yes this is inextricably linked with heating,
>> therefore unnecessary to be mentioned separately
>
> No strong feelings on the subject
Would ventilation cover building control issues (i.e. ventilated spaces to
prevent damp)? I would not expect this to be covered in the heating group
unless linked to the heating subject.
>
>> If by 'cooling' you mean 'air conditioning', then this is not
>> inextricably
>
> Cooling is a much bigger topic than just AC
Maybe someone with strong feelings on the subject or indeed in the 'cooling'
trade should propose a dedicated group. I haven't seen any recent postings
to any uk groups re this subject.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John.
>
> /=================================================================\
> | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
> |-----------------------------------------------------------------|
> | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
> \=================================================================/
Thanks for your input.
Nick Booth
I mused over the name for sometime. I'm not 100% happy with it, but it
seems to cover 95% of related topics ('cookers' is one which doesn't seem to
fit in the conventional sense, although would be a welcome and appropriate
discussion topic in the group).
At the end of the day, I would like to see a group containing posts related
to the Gas/Oil and heating trade, not a group where people are discussing
washing machines and light bulbs, and only every 25th post may be related to
heating, but the subject text is so vague you have to open the post. Maybe
the inclusion of 'commercial' is the stumbling block here? Limit it to
'domestic'? The odd OT commercial post would be handled I'm sure!
Andrew Gabriel
"Nick Booth" <angusm...@hotmail.com> writes:
> With all due respect, the general public are well aware that gas work should
> only be carried out by a competent person. The only legally recognised way
> of being competent is by being CORGI registered. Therefore GAS and DIY
> don't mix. Informed or uninformed, a DIYer should not attempt any gas work,
> and if thinking of doing so, would post / cross-post their questions to the
> heating group. Its like saying there shouldn't be landrover newsgroups, all
> mechanical questions should go through the d-i-y group.
> On searching (briefly) the d-i-y group, there is no diy gas work being
> discussed any way. My group proposal includes provision for professionals
> to discuss gas/oil safety, something that would be wholly inappropriate in a
> d-i-y group.
You appear to have an incorrect understanding of the coverage
of heating issues commonly covered in uk.d-i-y, which often
includes DIY gas work, and non-heating related gas work.
You also appear to have a misunderstanding of the way usenet
groups work (you can define a topic for the group, but not
who participates in the group).
As a result, I believe this proposal is misguided, and I think
would oppose it in its current form.
I won't bother commenting on your misunderstanding of the Gas
Safety Regulations, as that's going off-topic in uk.net.news.config,
but you will find the correct position is quite frequently
quoted in uk.d-i-y -- indeed we were consulted and contributed to
this precise part of the current Gas Safety Regulations when they
were being written.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Andrew Gabriel
"Nick Booth" <angusm...@hotmail.com> writes:
> I mused over the name for sometime. I'm not 100% happy with it, but it
> seems to cover 95% of related topics ('cookers' is one which doesn't seem to
> fit in the conventional sense, although would be a welcome and appropriate
> discussion topic in the group).
> At the end of the day, I would like to see a group containing posts related
> to the Gas/Oil and heating trade, not a group where people are discussing
> washing machines and light bulbs, and only every 25th post may be related to
> heating, but the subject text is so vague you have to open the post. Maybe
> the inclusion of 'commercial' is the stumbling block here? Limit it to
> 'domestic'? The odd OT commercial post would be handled I'm sure!
'commercial'/'domestic' is not a problem.
The problem is that most of this discussion currently takes place
in uk.d-i-y, and you have not said what effect you would wish your
new group to have on that. Based on what you said in another posting
this would appear to be because you have a misconception of the current
coverage of uk.d-i-y (your analysis of what it covers was wrong).
I would expect you to have a good understanding of the current
situation and how you wish it to change before asking for a new
newsgroup.
Once in a while, someone suggests splitting uk.d-i-y into several
component parts of which heating is one part, but such proposals
have always failed to date (usually before even getting to the RFD).
Secondly, even supposing it was possible to have a UK heating
newsgroup which was not DIY, where are those posts currently going?
Just creating a group doesn't create a viable community of posters;
they really need to exist somewhere already, and be willing to move
across to the new newsgroup. I am not aware of any such (which is
not to say they don't exist, but no one has pointed me to them yet).
--
Andrew Gabriel
Nick Booth
I had read the diyfaq pages before my RFD (there is no formal charter for
uk.d-i-y). Whilst an attempt has been made to try and cover water based
heating systems and boilers of various kinds, it certainly does not
specialise, nor give any in-depth understanding of gas/oil heating systems
(this is not a derogatory comment re the author's knowledge, just the
audience it is aimed at). In fact, the only mention of gas is that of pilot
lights, no mention of gas safety, CORGI or OFTEC.
uk.d-i-y, for whatever its original purpose was (and, I reiterate, I have
read the diyfaq pages), it has become a 'catch all', where people may post a
question when they cannot find a more appropriate group. I only stumbled
across uk.d-i-y in relation to plumbing and heating by chance (after MANY
searches over a long period of time), and I imagine people with boiler or
fire problems, or professional engineers wanting to discuss related topics
quite probably give up searching for an 'appropriate group'. Where would I
ask questions regarding a faulty Warm Air Unit or about black stains around
my LFE fire? These certainly aren't mentioned in diyfaq, and, again, my
first port of call would be to search for a newsgroup called 'heating', not
d-i-y.
I argue that uk.tech.heating would have a lively and ample community of
posters. Heating is a massive subject that deserves its own group. I have
possibly stepped on some toes here, and I can quite understand your views,
but I see gas & oil fired heating appliances (and their associated products
and systems), and any discussions/advice required/given as requiring its own
specialised technical group, uk.d-i-y simply doesn't give the subject matter
justice, and people are missing out as a result.
The heating industry are indeed currently campaigning for DIY stored (B&Q
etc) to stop selling gas associated products, as it is inappropriate for the
DIY market.
I may well have a rubbish newsreader, and indeed have only been frequenting
newsgroups off and on for 2 or 3 years, so I can't comment on your claims
that the d-i-y-group was 'consulted' and indeed 'contributed' to the Gas
Safety Regulations, but I thoroughly understand them, and commented upon
them as CORGI would like the public to perceive them.
Ideally, the diyfaq would include an additional line pointing heating
questions to the uk.tech.heating group, much as they've done for gardening
and telecoms etc.
I am pleased and interested with everyone's comments so far, and would
gladly welcome any comments/suggestions regarding the best route to advance
this request, changes etc. I want to work with you all to try and get this
group created.
Nick
Ali Hopkins
>
> I won't bother commenting on your misunderstanding of the Gas
> Safety Regulations, as that's going off-topic in uk.net.news.config,
> but you will find the correct position is quite frequently
> quoted in uk.d-i-y -- indeed we were consulted and contributed to
> this precise part of the current Gas Safety Regulations when they
> were being written.
>
This comment leads me to something I've been mulling over for a couple of
weeks; not to do with this RFD, but the wider regulation question and its
impact on house sale and purchase. Home Information Packs will have one heck
of an impact on all of us, and I have a feeling that a group would be
Useful. I shall think on.
Sorry for the unrelated nature of this ponder. :)
Ali
Andy Hall
wrote:
>
>With regards discussions about Gas and Oil safety, these subject matters
>should definitely NOT be associated with DIY of any kind.
>
That is completely nonsensical.
If you take the position that all work involving gas and oil should be
carried out by professionals who are members of one of the trade
organisations (e.g. CORGI), then you would presumably say to anybody
asking a question in a group of the type you describe, that they
should contact somebody who is a member of such an organisation -
yourself for example.
There are two implications of that. One is that it becomes distinctly
commercial in nature (i.e. a business referral and advertising
arrangement) - that is not the intention of Usenet groups of the type
you describe - and secondly that discussions would be pretty short
because presumably the professionals who believe that only they should
do the work would not want to enter into a discussion of what is
involved.
If your real intent is to have a group for discussion between
professionals, then it would be better to have that as a moderated
mailing list type of arrangement through Yahoo Groups or something
like that. It would be pretty much instantaneous and you could have
files and pictures etc. - much more suited to a commercial group.
In addition, your comment that gas installation and safety should not
be associated with DIY, in the case of the man on the Clapham Omnibus
that may well be true.
However, there is no basis in law for this position (it requires
people to be competent, but only a member of CORGI for work for
reward). If you read through reports of the HSE gas safety
committees, they acknowledge that DIY gas work does indeed take place
and have considered whether to/ways of legislating against it. Quite
sensibly, they have realised that there is not, in practice a problem
- i.e. no noticable reports of death or injury - and secondly that
there is no practicable way of controlling it anyway. When CORGI was
set up, the objective was to attempt to eliminate cowboy fitters and
set a standard of training for legitimate ones.
In that respect it has largely succeeded, but obviously there are
still cowboys, and despite the propaganda, there is no guarantee that
work carried out by a CORGI fitter is beyond reproach. FOr example,
we have had cases described in uk.d-i-y where joints in copper
pipework have been fluxed but not soldered. This will pass an
integrity test initially, but is an obvious safety issue.
In uk.d-i-y there are a number of registered gas fitters and we quite
regularly get people coming to ask about aspects of some gas
installation or repair work.
These range from something as simple ss changing a flame failure
thermocouple in a boiler, through capping off a gas pipe to a full
boiler installation.
It is normally very obvious from the first post or within one or two
iterations whether the person is competent to do the job they are
asking about safely. It is also pointed out what the potential issues
are and sources of information.
Generally, the outcome is in one of three directions:
- The person realises that they are not competent to do the work and
goes and finds a CORGI fitter
- They go for doing some of the work - e.g. hanging and plumbing a
boiler but get a fitter to connect and commission
- They are capable of doing the work, but needed information on a
specific detail. It can be provided but if too complex can then
decide for a fitter to do the work.
I think that this is a responsible and useful approach.
- People who are just going to go off and do their own work regardless
and oblivious will do so anyway and are not likely to read Usenet.
- People who come and ask are being responsible and can be guided
accordingly.
Given all of that, it is entirely appropriate, as well as beneficial
that such discussion should happen in the context of a DIY newsgroup.
--
.andy
Christian McArdle
> should definitely NOT be associated with DIY of any kind.
Why should DIYers not be concerned with safety? That would be ridiculous.
There is no law against DIY for gas and oil systems, no matter what the
guilds (i.e. CORGI) would like you to think.
Christian.
Andrew Gabriel
"Nick Booth" <angusm...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> I had read the diyfaq pages before my RFD (there is no formal charter for
> uk.d-i-y). Whilst an attempt has been made to try and cover water based
> heating systems and boilers of various kinds, it certainly does not
> specialise, nor give any in-depth understanding of gas/oil heating systems
> (this is not a derogatory comment re the author's knowledge, just the
> audience it is aimed at). In fact, the only mention of gas is that of pilot
> lights, no mention of gas safety, CORGI or OFTEC.
What? I don't know what you read, but there's a large
section on gas fitting, safety, CORGI, pipe sizing, soundness
and purging, commissioning, etc. The Gas fitting section is
maintained by a couple of the CORGI engineers who regularly
participate in the newsgroup. These are _very_ frequently
discussed issues in the newsgroup itself.
> uk.d-i-y, for whatever its original purpose was (and, I reiterate, I have
> read the diyfaq pages), it has become a 'catch all', where people may post a
> question when they cannot find a more appropriate group. I only stumbled
> across uk.d-i-y in relation to plumbing and heating by chance (after MANY
> searches over a long period of time), and I imagine people with boiler or
> fire problems, or professional engineers wanting to discuss related topics
> quite probably give up searching for an 'appropriate group'. Where would I
> ask questions regarding a faulty Warm Air Unit or about black stains around
> my LFE fire? These certainly aren't mentioned in diyfaq, and, again, my
> first port of call would be to search for a newsgroup called 'heating', not
> d-i-y.
Warm air units and LFE fire questions come up quite frequently
on uk.d-i-y. People don't in general seem to have any problem
finding the newsgroup. I would imagine there's a high chance of
it popping up on any newsgroup search engine if you type in
some brief description of a heating problem. Oil questions come
up less often as you would expect from fewer installations, but
there is at least one OFTEC participent who provides extremely
detailed and comprehensive answers when they do.
> I argue that uk.tech.heating would have a lively and ample community of
> posters. Heating is a massive subject that deserves its own group. I have
The only part of heating and gas fitting which is currently
large on usenet is DIY, which you don't seem to be interested
in. It's not clear to me that there's enough viable demand to
maintain a non-DIY heating group (even supposing that was possible),
which seems to be what you expect the new group to be.
> possibly stepped on some toes here, and I can quite understand your views,
> but I see gas & oil fired heating appliances (and their associated products
> and systems), and any discussions/advice required/given as requiring its own
> specialised technical group, uk.d-i-y simply doesn't give the subject matter
> justice, and people are missing out as a result.
You don't appear to be aware of what's discussed in uk.d-i-y.
> The heating industry are indeed currently campaigning for DIY stored (B&Q
> etc) to stop selling gas associated products, as it is inappropriate for the
> DIY market.
Given that the majority of gas and heating questions are DIY
related, I suspect you won't get very far on usenet if you
try and take that view.
> I may well have a rubbish newsreader, and indeed have only been frequenting
> newsgroups off and on for 2 or 3 years, so I can't comment on your claims
> that the d-i-y-group was 'consulted' and indeed 'contributed' to the Gas
> Safety Regulations, but I thoroughly understand them, and commented upon
> them as CORGI would like the public to perceive them.
Please read the regs yourself. What CORGI claim on their website
is what they wanted the regs to say, but they didn't get their
way during the consultation process because there was no sound
reasoning behind their views, hence their current information is
incorrect. I would suggest moving this particular topic to uk.d-i-y
if you want any further explaination of the reasoning behind HSE's
decision. I'm happy to give it, but it's off-topic here and would
probably seriously detract from this thread.
> Ideally, the diyfaq would include an additional line pointing heating
> questions to the uk.tech.heating group, much as they've done for gardening
> and telecoms etc.
Well, it's got a line pointing to the current gas fitting faq,
but I presume you didn't see that?
I don't want to sound all negative, but I really think you need
a better understanding of the current coverage of UK heating
issues on usenet before you can suggest any sensible changes.
I'm not against any changes, but they need to be justified, and
I don't yet see any valid justification.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Keith Lawrence
"Nick Booth" <angusm...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I am pleased and interested with everyone's comments so
> far, and would gladly welcome any comments/suggestions
> regarding the best route to advance this request, changes etc.
I think you're doing OK Nick :-)
Having follow this debate, the d-i-y issues, the HVAC diversion etc. etc.
and Nicks comments - I'm seeing no real issues with this at all. The
proposal clearly covers ground outside of the DIY area, posts that are
off-topic in that group (i.e. not DIY) would clearly be on-topic in the
proposed group. I agree with others in that the word 'heating' is not ideal,
but I can't think of a better one either :-) Without a specific A/C type
group posters are likely to choose this group, I'm not seeing any problem in
that, in fact I would encourage it as I feel that home A/C will be a growing
trend in the next few years within the UK.
So I support the creation of this group, I may even subscribe and use it
myself on occasions. I would not object to any FT request, in fact I hope
that is how the group is progressed.
Cheers
Keith L
Ali Hopkins
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:iqenq1pi4jmuvorm4...@4ax.com...
> Generally, the outcome is in one of three directions:
>
> - The person realises that they are not competent to do the work and
> goes and finds a CORGI fitter
>
> - They go for doing some of the work - e.g. hanging and plumbing a
> boiler but get a fitter to connect and commission
>
> - They are capable of doing the work, but needed information on a
> specific detail. It can be provided but if too complex can then
> decide for a fitter to do the work.
>
>
> I think that this is a responsible and useful approach.
>
> - People who are just going to go off and do their own work regardless
> and oblivious will do so anyway and are not likely to read Usenet.
And Darwin will probably obtain. :)
>
> - People who come and ask are being responsible and can be guided
> accordingly.
>
One point of warning on this; from 2007, you will need certificates if they
exist and a Home Condition Report to sell your house. Now, the lack of a
certificate won't prevent the sale, of course, but it will have financial
implications. The buyer may choose to beat you down on price, or you, as the
seller will need to get the certification work done. It doesn't stop people
doing their own thing, but I do think there should be an awareness of the
implications.
Ali
Chris Croughton
<angusm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> CHARTER: uk.tech.heating
>
> The purpose of this group is to discuss the following:
>
> Central heating ideas, problems and solutions - domestic and commercial;
>
> Hot water ideas, problems and solutions - domestic and commercial;
>
> Heating system design and associated plumbing techniques;
>
> Breakdown, service and repair questions and answers.
>
> Gas and Oil safety;
>
> General industry related (CORGI, OFTEC, LPG, Solid Fuel) discussion.
>
> This list is not exhaustive but messages to the group should be relevant to
> heating and hot water provision.
How about alternate heating systems, like solar ones? I assume that
they'd be on topic but it would be nice to include them (and I'd be
interested in technical discussions of the heating efficiency, flow and
so on).
After Christmas <g>...
Chris C
Andy Hall
The simple solution, in preparation for the sale of a house would be
to obtain a suitable inspection and safety certificate (e.g. a
Landlord's certificate).
>
--
.andy
John
"Fentoozler" <nospam@mapson> wrote in message
news:bcidnV-c2Io...@pipex.net...
I completely disagree with this sentiment! Safety information SHOULD be
disseminated and not kept hidden as a pretence of being a black art known
only to the trade. Present legislation does not require professional only
participation and it is often (but not always) the case that d-i-y jobs are
actually carried out with more care and diligence than some professional
ones. I am retired but was until very recently a CORGI registered installer
specialising in maintenance so I came across a wide spectrum of quality of
work, which I found to be exactly as I mentioned above.
Knowing what is involved in operating a gas or oil system safely is far more
likely to have a positive effect on the health of the nation than otherwise,
especially when one of the less diligent pros has been involved.
>
> With regard to ventilation, yes this is inextricably linked with heating,
> therefore unnecessary to be mentioned separately
> If by 'cooling' you mean 'air conditioning', then this is not inextricably
> linked to the heating trade, a different subject matter and profession
> entirely, but I imaging the group may receive posts regarding this matter
> as it is 'relevant'.
Your thinking is blinkered. The fact that a large number of "heating"
installers have no ability or knowledge of air-con is not a realistic
picture when the control of comfort within a building is being considered. I
think the basic problem is one of education since in one job I had the
dubious pleasure of working with one supposedly "trained" air-con technician
who was blissfully unaware of the concept of vapour pressure or latent heat
of vapourisation. How the hell he managed to be assessed as competent to be
released onto the public I do not know but he didn't last with the company I
was with at the time. He is probably bouncing around the service industry
somewhere still.
>
>
Having the proposed group as unmoderated may prove to be a mistake. Take a
look at the pollution of many threads in uk.d-i-y which start out as serious
enquiry but through a small number of posters (one and a number of sock
puppets) are hijacked and turn into long sagas of stupidity. Having a
moderated group would be one way of blocking out the polluters quickly
before this became a problem. Trying to find useful information on a
technical issue from uk.d-i-y using Google is nearly impossible nowadays as
it throws up pages and pages of "debate" with little relevance to the
original thread.
The banning of adverts is generally a good thing but small mention of
developments as they are relevant to a response is sometimes very useful.
As with Andrew I will wait to see what develops before deciding
John
Ali Hopkins
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
Nope, sorry, won't work. The report has to be a Home Condition Report
prepared by a qualified and registered HCI. And the certificates, if they
exist, must be by Qualified Persons. Those who carry out Landlord's
certification may not necessarily be HCIs.
I can bore you rigid with the draft regulations, if you like. <veg>
Ali
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember somebody <in...@somewhere.co.uk>
saying something like:
>FFS ...
> > *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
Who says?
--
Dave
GS850x2 SE6a
I demand nothing of you except that you amuse me.
DJC
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:11:30 -0000, "Fentoozler" <nospam@mapson>
> wrote:
>>With regards discussions about Gas and Oil safety, these subject matters
>>should definitely NOT be associated with DIY of any kind.
> - The person realises that they are not competent to do the work and
> goes and finds a CORGI fitter
>
> - They go for doing some of the work - e.g. hanging and plumbing a
> boiler but get a fitter to connect and commission
>
> - They are capable of doing the work, but needed information on a
> specific detail. It can be provided but if too complex can then
> decide for a fitter to do the work.
...
>
> Given all of that, it is entirely appropriate, as well as beneficial
> that such discussion should happen in the context of a DIY newsgroup.
You might also add the cases where people with no intention of actually
*doing* the work nonetheless want to canvass opinion on how the job
should be done. Reaching a somewhat informed opinion of the competence
of those hired rather than just trusting to advertised qualifications
and certifications is entirely reasonable. A DIY group is also useful
for people who are jus' lookin'
--
David Clark
$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"
Ed Sirett
So these HCIs will have to be competant to assess the state of the gas,
water, electrical, oil and drainage services? It may well be that the
report [1] will encompass all these things and more. It is just about
certain that they'll have to sub out more that one or two of the aspects
to a specialist.
[1] I've spoken to a number of people in the 'trade' (of house
letting/management/selling) almost all are of the opinion that the
purchasers won't trust a report commissioned and paid for by the vendor.
--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Ed Sirett
> In article <tOZ5kvb+...@somewhere.co.uk>,
> somebody <in...@somewhere.co.uk> wrote:
>> FFS ...
>> > *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>
> Bollocks.
2'ed.
Even if does happen it's not going to stop posts coming hear, nor is it
going to stop replies to them.
There are already a load of trade forums available including ones hosted
by Screwfux.
Andy Hall
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:ge9oq11175f4vj439...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 12:40:03 -0000, "Ali Hopkins"
>> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>>>One point of warning on this; from 2007, you will need certificates if
>>>they
>>>exist and a Home Condition Report to sell your house. Now, the lack of a
>>>certificate won't prevent the sale, of course, but it will have financial
>>>implications. The buyer may choose to beat you down on price, or you, as
>>>the
>>>seller will need to get the certification work done. It doesn't stop
>>>people
>>>doing their own thing, but I do think there should be an awareness of the
>>>implications.
>>
>> The simple solution, in preparation for the sale of a house would be
>> to obtain a suitable inspection and safety certificate (e.g. a
>> Landlord's certificate).
>>
>
>Nope, sorry, won't work. The report has to be a Home Condition Report
>prepared by a qualified and registered HCI. And the certificates, if they
>exist, must be by Qualified Persons. Those who carry out Landlord's
>certification may not necessarily be HCIs.
>
Said certificate would be from somebody in the CORGI guild to be given
to the person in the HCI guild.
--
.andy
Ali Hopkins
"Ed Sirett" <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.23....@makewrite.demon.co.uk...
> So these HCIs will have to be competant to assess the state of the gas,
> water, electrical, oil and drainage services? It may well be that the
> report [1] will encompass all these things and more. It is just about
> certain that they'll have to sub out more that one or two of the aspects
> to a specialist.
>
They will be qualified surveyors or possibly BCIs and most likely RICS
members or dimilar. It's a tough and quite expensive qualification to get.
I know what's in the draft report format as released to the "trade", and it
most certianly won't be a rubber stamp exercise.
>
> [1] I've spoken to a number of people in the 'trade' (of house
> letting/management/selling) almost all are of the opinion that the
> purchasers won't trust a report commissioned and paid for by the vendor.
>
It's not necessarily commissioned and paid for by the vendor, for one thing,
although it is their responsibility to ensure it happens. And there are very
stringent quality controls on the content and format. The HCR will be
something of a half way house between a drive by valuation and a full blown
structural survey. Many buyers STILL only have valuation surveys done, more
fool them, so a HIP will be better than many current positions.
It doesn't apply to letting, of course, that's not covered.
Ali
Ali Hopkins
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
If you mean the inspection certificate to signal a retrofitted compliance,
then yes, for gas it would be CORGI, for double glazing FENSA and so forth.
It would NOT go to the HCI - and there isn't actually a guild for those as
such by the way. It would go to the HIP compiler.
Ali
Percy Picacity
news:4132vgF...@individual.net:
But if the buyer loses money because of the negligence of the
surveyor, will the latter be responsible for compensating them? If
not, then it is a complete waste of time and money for everyone
except the surveyor.
--
Percy Picacity
Andy Hall
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
>If you mean the inspection certificate to signal a retrofitted compliance,
>then yes, for gas it would be CORGI, for double glazing FENSA and so forth.
Exactly, so it's a non-issue.
>It would NOT go to the HCI - and there isn't actually a guild for those as
>such by the way. It would go to the HIP compiler.
>
Oh I see. Would he be a member of the HIP guild?
--
.andy
Andrew Gabriel
"Ali Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
> "Ed Sirett" <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.12.23....@makewrite.demon.co.uk...
>
>> So these HCIs will have to be competant to assess the state of the gas,
>> water, electrical, oil and drainage services? It may well be that the
>> report [1] will encompass all these things and more. It is just about
>> certain that they'll have to sub out more that one or two of the aspects
>> to a specialist.
>
> They will be qualified surveyors or possibly BCIs and most likely RICS
> members or dimilar.
They will definately not be surveyors -- RICS is being very firm
on that point, as it would devalue real surveyors. They will hold
a diploma in home inspection.
> It's a tough and quite expensive qualification to get.
A problem at the moment is that the training is behind schedule,
and many of those coming forward to be trained are turning out
not to be up to it. It had been thought that applicants would
come from within the building trade (I can't think why), but
the applicants are mainly from outside the building trade, and
completely ignorant of building work.
> I know what's in the draft report format as released to the "trade", and it
> most certianly won't be a rubber stamp exercise.
>
>> [1] I've spoken to a number of people in the 'trade' (of house
>> letting/management/selling) almost all are of the opinion that the
>> purchasers won't trust a report commissioned and paid for by the vendor.
Currently, no mortgage lender is willing to accept it either.
I wouldn't accept it on a house I was buying.
> It's not necessarily commissioned and paid for by the vendor, for one thing,
It has to exist before the house can go on the market, so it's
difficult to see what other arrangement might exist.
> although it is their responsibility to ensure it happens. And there are very
> stringent quality controls on the content and format. The HCR will be
> something of a half way house between a drive by valuation and a full blown
> structural survey. Many buyers STILL only have valuation surveys done, more
> fool them, so a HIP will be better than many current positions.
Apparently, only a 1/3rd of buyers have a survey (I suspect that
excludes those who rely on the mortgage lender's valuation report).
> It doesn't apply to letting, of course, that's not covered.
[Followups drop uk.net.news.config, where this is going off-topic]
--
Andrew Gabriel
John Rumm
> It's the way stuph is done when new net news groups (aka newsgroups or
> usenet groups) are created in the uk.* hierarchy. It isn't meant to
> prevent folk in existing groups discussing the proposal - far from it,
> but in terms of the creation process and the lead to any vote, the
> discussion takes place in uk.net.news.config as it is a 'config' issue
> and should not necessarily become too off topic in the groups it may
> possibly, but not provenly, affect.
Does not having the discussion in uk.net.news.config _and_ having it
crossposted to uk.d-i-y not also achieve the same result?
> I have modified the 'follow-up' groups, as I'm interested in the
> proposal but do not take uk.d-i-y - this does not mean you are being
Hence my comment above for those of us who don't take uk.net.news.config
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Ali Hopkins
"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9735CC73D4B...@207.14.113.17...
> But if the buyer loses money because of the negligence of the
> surveyor, will the latter be responsible for compensating them? If
> not, then it is a complete waste of time and money for everyone
> except the surveyor.
>
In two words, Indemnity Insurance.
Ali
Ali Hopkins
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
No such animal.
Ali
raden
Booth <angusm...@hotmail.com> writes
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.tech.heating
>
>Newsgroup line:
>uk.tech.heating Central Heating / Hot Water Discussion
>
>
Sounds err ... riveting
We seem to manage fairly well here
--
geoff
raden
<nospam@mapson.?.invalid> writes
>"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:43ab3ca8$0$256$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>> suggest considering if any new group should cover heating,
>> ventilation, and cooling. These are really inextricably linked,
>> particularly if you are interested in engaging professionals
>> covering commercial work.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Gabriel
>
>should definitely NOT be associated with DIY of any kind.
And why not ?
Surely "professionals" should know all about it in the first place
How else would someone wanting to do their own gas work learn about such
things
>
>With regard to ventilation, yes this is inextricably linked with heating,
>therefore unnecessary to be mentioned separately
>If by 'cooling' you mean 'air conditioning', then this is not inextricably
>linked to the heating trade, a different subject matter and profession
>entirely, but I imaging the group may receive posts regarding this matter as
>it is 'relevant'.
>
>
--
geoff
raden
Sirett <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 01:00:00 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> In article <tOZ5kvb+...@somewhere.co.uk>,
>> somebody <in...@somewhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>> FFS ...
>>> > *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>>
>> Bollocks.
>
>2'ed.
>Even if does happen it's not going to stop posts coming hear, nor is it
>going to stop replies to them.
>
taking off at all
--
geoff
Pedt
21:58:18 on Fri, 23 Dec 2005, John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null>
wibbled
>Mother wrote:
>
>> It's the way stuph is done when new net news groups (aka newsgroups or
>> usenet groups) are created in the uk.* hierarchy. It isn't meant to
>> prevent folk in existing groups discussing the proposal - far from it,
>> but in terms of the creation process and the lead to any vote, the
>> discussion takes place in uk.net.news.config as it is a 'config' issue
>> and should not necessarily become too off topic in the groups it may
>> possibly, but not provenly, affect.
>
>Does not having the discussion in uk.net.news.config _and_ having it
>crossposted to uk.d-i-y not also achieve the same result?
The definitive discussion of the RFD has to appear in uk.net.news.config
and any discussion solely in other newsgroups, uk.d-i-y in this case,
that appears outside uk.net.news.config is not considered part of the
definitive discussion.
Whilst there is no objection to the discussion concerning the RFD itself
appearing in both newsgroups, sidebars with no relevance to the RFD
should be hived off into uk.d-i-y (cf Andrew Gabriel setting followups
on the HCR discussion as an example).
I would suggest that uk.d-i-y subscribers should subscribe to unnc from
the start of the RFD if they are interested in the progress of the RFD.
Not all comments on the RFD will be crossposted to uk.d-i-y
--
Pedt
Member of, but not speaking for, UKVoting
raden
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>
>>
>> - People who come and ask are being responsible and can be guided
>> accordingly.
>>
>
>One point of warning on this; from 2007, you will need certificates if they
>exist and a Home Condition Report to sell your house. Now, the lack of a
>certificate won't prevent the sale, of course, but it will have financial
>implications. The buyer may choose to beat you down on price, or you, as the
>seller will need to get the certification work done. It doesn't stop people
>doing their own thing, but I do think there should be an awareness of the
>implications.
>
If a buyer wants a house, they want the house
--
geoff
raden
<and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <ergmq1ddhpg4ujg4o...@4ax.com>,
> Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> writes:
>> Message-ID: <43ab3ca8$0$256$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk> from Andrew
>> Gabriel contained the following:
>>
>>>A second point: I'm not sure I see why just "heating" -- I would
>>>suggest considering if any new group should cover heating,
>>>ventilation, and cooling. These are really inextricably linked,
>>>particularly if you are interested in engaging professionals
>>>covering commercial work
>>
>> 'heating'?
>
>HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling),
Bugger - I've gone 25 years thinking it meant "Heating, ventilation and
air conditioning"
>but it's
>probably a term not well-known outside the trade,
>which may make it not a good choice for a newsgroup
>name. I suggest leaving worrying about the name until
>after there is agreement on the intended topic coverage.
>
--
geoff
Pedt
Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Keith Lawrence <fa...@nospam.com> wibbled
>
>"Nick Booth" <angusm...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> I am pleased and interested with everyone's comments so
>> far, and would gladly welcome any comments/suggestions
>> regarding the best route to advance this request, changes etc.
>
>I think you're doing OK Nick :-)
>
>Having follow this debate, the d-i-y issues, the HVAC diversion etc. etc.
>and Nicks comments - I'm seeing no real issues with this at all. The
>proposal clearly covers ground outside of the DIY area, posts that are
>off-topic in that group (i.e. not DIY) would clearly be on-topic in the
>proposed group. I agree with others in that the word 'heating' is not ideal,
>but I can't think of a better one either :-) Without a specific A/C type
>group posters are likely to choose this group, I'm not seeing any problem in
>that, in fact I would encourage it as I feel that home A/C will be a growing
>trend in the next few years within the UK.
>
>So I support the creation of this group, I may even subscribe and use it
>myself on occasions. I would not object to any FT request, in fact I hope
>that is how the group is progressed.
Apols for piggybacking a bit, short of time.
Agreed it covers ground outside the DIY area and I think it is an
overall positive new group suggestion.
Concern:
I have electric storage heaters only and though I would not consider
uk.d-i-y as a suitable location as a place to ask any questions, the
proposed group doesn't seem to include this in its remit though it is
"heating".
I'd vote no at the moment. If a further RFD puts electric heating in as
included as being heating then I would be a yes.
I would object to an FT at the moment on the grounds that a .heating
group should include more than just those who use gas or oil for
heating. OK, that could get silly if someone suggests they live above
a cowshed to get extra heat from the cows ;-) and I would not subscribe
to that but electric heating is quite commonplace and should be included
IMO.
Agree that uk.tech.heating is not perhaps an ideal name but I can't
think of a better alternative to .heating either so no objection to
the name.
Dave Plowman (News)
> Bugger - I've gone 25 years thinking it meant "Heating, ventilation and
> air conditioning"
It does on a car. ;-)
--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Andrew Gabriel
Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> writes:
>
> I have electric storage heaters only and though I would not consider
> uk.d-i-y as a suitable location as a place to ask any questions, the
Curious -- why not?
Have you tried and had a bad experience?
Storage heating (of various different types)
comes up reasonably often.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Wm...
<rfd1-uk.tech.heating-20051222202612$5a...@gradwell.net>
uk.net.news.config Nick Booth <angusm...@hotmail.com>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.tech.heating
>
>Newsgroup line:
>uk.tech.heating Central Heating / Hot Water Discussion
>
>
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>
>This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
>Further procedural details are given below.
>
>RATIONALE: uk.tech.heating
Having read the discussion so far I am undecided about the group and
could be persuaded either way (if I had to choose right now I'd find
myself in the "this is diy and we don't need the new group" camp).
I think the name needs a bit more thought. There have been some
suggestions, none leap out as obvious to me and I can't think of a
better one either. It is often the case that if a name can't be found
(particularly when the proponent starts off by saying the name of an
existing group is wrong for their purpose) then naming may be important.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
Peter Parry
<angusm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>With all due respect, the general public are well aware that gas work should
>only be carried out by a competent person. The only legally recognised way
>of being competent is by being CORGI registered.
Completely wrong. The only legally way someone plying for trade can
be recognised as competent is by being Corgied. Anyone doing it
themselves can, quite legally, proclaim their own competence.
>Therefore GAS and DIY don't mix.
Of course they do. If for no other reason that it is often necessary
to repair the bodges done by Corgis.
> Informed or uninformed, a DIYer should not attempt any gas work,
>and if thinking of doing so, would post / cross-post their questions to the
>heating group.
Why should someone thinking of installing a gas cooker look in a
heating group?
>On searching (briefly) the d-i-y group, there is no diy gas work being
>discussed any way.
You have not looked very hard, it is quite a regular subject.
>My group proposal includes provision for professionals
>to discuss gas/oil safety, something that would be wholly inappropriate in a
>d-i-y group.
Why? The range of experience, qualifications and expertise found in
uk.d-i-y is far greater than would ever be found in a group mainly
for heating tradesmen.
>Would ventilation cover building control issues (i.e. ventilated spaces to
>prevent damp)? I would not expect this to be covered in the heating group
>unless linked to the heating subject.
Heating is far to limited a subject, perhaps environmental control
would be more appropriate but if you want a trade group to act as a
medium for touting your wares and putting people off doing things
themselves then go to a Yahoo group or something similar. The last
attempt at a trade related group was uk.tech.electronic-security
which is more or less moribund.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
Andrew Hodgson
<angusm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> create unmoderated newsgroup uk.tech.heating
I would have used uk.d-i-y like other people have said. As I was
reading it my mind kept thinking of home automation etc, or a general
purpose plumbing group. I probably wouldn't support a group like this
as it stands now.
Andrew.
--
Andrew Hodgson in Bromyard, Herefordshire, UK.
My Email: use <andrew at hodgsonfamily dot org>.
Dr John Stockton
23 Dec 2005 00:44:56 local, seen in news:uk.net.news.config, Andrew
Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> posted :
>> The name is less than ideal, but is there a better single word than
>> 'heating'?
>
>HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling), but it's
>probably a term not well-known outside the trade,
>which may make it not a good choice for a newsgroup
>name.
You may be technically incorrect there. Outside that trade, ISTM that
it may be quite well known as High Voltage Alternating Current - which
actually reinforces your position.
However, the word "heating" conveys to me more than just warming the
local environment - there's cooking, soldering, welding, casting of
ingots etc.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??.Stoc...@physics.org ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
raden
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes
>JRS: In article <43ab4888$0$256$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>, dated Fri,
>23 Dec 2005 00:44:56 local, seen in news:uk.net.news.config, Andrew
>Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> posted :
>>In article <ergmq1ddhpg4ujg4o...@4ax.com>,
>> Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> The name is less than ideal, but is there a better single word than
>>> 'heating'?
>>
>>HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling), but it's
>>probably a term not well-known outside the trade,
>>which may make it not a good choice for a newsgroup
>>name.
>
>You may be technically incorrect there.
If you mean HVAC. Then he is not "technically incorrect" as you put it.
Anyone with a clue would understand the meaning.
I remember in the old days of contracting it merited a complete section
by itself and at the time, i was as ignorant as you until someone put me
right
>Outside that trade, ISTM that
>it may be quite well known as High Voltage Alternating Current - which
>actually reinforces your position.
>
>However, the word "heating" conveys to me more than just warming the
>local environment - there's cooking, soldering, welding, casting of
>ingots etc.
>
--
geoff
Dave Fawthrop
<angusm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| create unmoderated newsgroup uk.tech.heating
This RFD has not IMO been properly thought through.
uk.d-i-y is a well used high volume group which more or less stays On
Topic, but it IMO would be worth splitting into _say_
uk.d-i-y,plumbing, uk.d-i-y,building uk.d-i-y.electrical and leave
uk.d-i-y for miscellaneous posts.
uk.d-i-y is a heritage group from before the hierarchy was organised,
there is an example of another heritage group uk.food+drink.* which
has successfully become a hierarchy. I would suggest that this RFD
be moved to uk.d-i-y.????
By limiting the group to heating, and cutting off domestic cold water,
it splits a classic DIY project in two. I am in the midst of
replacing a boiler, which necessitates some changes to the cold water
system. I would suggest that uk.d-i-y.plumbing would be a better
group, but that would add waste water and sewage to its scope.
--
Dave Fawthrop <hyphen Hyphenologist.co.uk> Register your mobile phone
IMEI *free* on http://www.menduk.org/. Keep the username and password.
If it gets stolen report it your provider to get it blocked. To hopefully
get it back report on http://www.menduk.org/ or 08701 123 123.
Graham Drabble
news:5biVaZD$XZrD...@ntlworld.com:
> In message <sOCX$+COzXr...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, Dr John Stockton
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes
>>JRS: In article <43ab4888$0$256$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
>>dated Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:44:56 local, seen in
>>news:uk.net.news.config, Andrew Gabriel
>><and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> posted :
>>>HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling), but it's
>>>probably a term not well-known outside the trade,
>>>which may make it not a good choice for a newsgroup
>>>name.
>>
>>You may be technically incorrect there.
>
> If you mean HVAC. Then he is not "technically incorrect" as you
> put it.
>
> Anyone with a clue would understand the meaning.
I think John was probably commenting on the "a term not well-know
outside the trade" part. It probably is well known but, like most
acronyms, has many meaning. I certainly think of High Voltage
Electric Current first when I see HVAC.
FWIW I've just asked my Dad what thinks HVAC means and he also
answered High Voltage Electric Current
F/ups to unnc, this isn't really about DIY.
--
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/
Doctor Drivel
>> Gabriel contained the following:
>>
>>>A second point: I'm not sure I see why just "heating" -- I would
>>>suggest considering if any new group should cover heating,
>>>ventilation, and cooling. These are really inextricably linked,
>>>particularly if you are interested in engaging professionals
>>>covering commercial work
>>
>> 'heating'?
>
> probably a term not well-known outside the trade,
Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning.
The three overlap in commercial fields, while plumbing is entirely separate.
In the domestic fields heating and plumbing overlap, which is problem as
plumber generally are not that well up on heating to the point they add
little value, being far too retrograde.
Peter Parry
<inv...@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>This RFD has not IMO been properly thought through.
You are a bit of an expert on the subject of inadequately thinking
through group formation.
>uk.d-i-y is a well used high volume group which more or less stays On
>Topic, but it IMO would be worth splitting into _say_
>uk.d-i-y,plumbing, uk.d-i-y,building uk.d-i-y.electrical and leave
>uk.d-i-y for miscellaneous posts.
Why break something which quite obviously isn't broken?
>uk.d-i-y is a heritage group from before the hierarchy was organised,
>there is an example of another heritage group uk.food+drink.* which
>has successfully become a hierarchy. I would suggest that this RFD
>be moved to uk.d-i-y.????
An RFD specifically designed to exclude DIY should be used to create
a DIY hierarchy? That pretty bright but just what I'd expect from
someone with the attention span of an inebriate newt.
>By limiting the group to heating, and cutting off domestic cold water,
>it splits a classic DIY project in two.
It would, how do you cook with the water cut off?
John Bean
<pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:15:21 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
><inv...@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>This RFD has not IMO been properly thought through.
>
>You are a bit of an expert on the subject of inadequately thinking
>through group formation.
Come on Peter, it's Christmas after all. Season of good will
to all... even Fawthrop.
>>uk.d-i-y is a well used high volume group which more or less stays On
>>Topic, but it IMO would be worth splitting into _say_
>>uk.d-i-y,plumbing, uk.d-i-y,building uk.d-i-y.electrical and leave
>>uk.d-i-y for miscellaneous posts.
>
>Why break something which quite obviously isn't broken?
Sorry, I thought that's what DIYers did.
>>uk.d-i-y is a heritage group from before the hierarchy was organised,
>>there is an example of another heritage group uk.food+drink.* which
>>has successfully become a hierarchy. I would suggest that this RFD
>>be moved to uk.d-i-y.????
>
>An RFD specifically designed to exclude DIY should be used to create
>a DIY hierarchy? That pretty bright but just what I'd expect from
>someone with the attention span of an inebriate newt.
Hey, newts have feelings too you know.
>>By limiting the group to heating, and cutting off domestic cold water,
>>it splits a classic DIY project in two.
>
>It would, how do you cook with the water cut off?
Damn, you beat me to that one.
I'm not taking this contribution from Mr Fawthrop very
seriously either, nothing new there. I'll follow the
(serious) discussion with a passing interest.
As it stands I'd vote in favour.
--
John Bean
Paul Harper
<inv...@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>but that would add waste water and sewage to its scope
... and we already have a uk.net.news.* hierarchy that covers these.
Happy Christmas.
Paul.
--
. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.
John Blundell
<pa...@harper.net> writes
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:15:21 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
><inv...@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>but that would add waste water and sewage to its scope
>
>... and we already have a uk.net.news.* hierarchy that covers these.
... not to mention hot air, which presumably the RFD is intended to
cover too.
>Happy Christmas.
Merry Christmas
John
--
John Blundell
Dave J.
uk.net.news.config, 'John Bean' wrote:
>>Why break something which quite obviously isn't broken?
>
>Sorry, I thought that's what DIYers did.
LOL That's about right. You've just made the quick dip back into usenet
worthwhile..
For the men,
uk.diy.repair.before-it-breaks
For the ladies
uk.diy.repair.after-my-partner-'fixed'-it
Happy Solstice Festi (or whatever) to you too.
Dave J.
Ed Sirett
>
> "Ed Sirett" <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.12.23....@makewrite.demon.co.uk...
>
>> So these HCIs will have to be competant to assess the state of the gas,
>> water, electrical, oil and drainage services? It may well be that the
>> report [1] will encompass all these things and more. It is just about
>> certain that they'll have to sub out more that one or two of the aspects
>> to a specialist.
>>
>
> They will be qualified surveyors or possibly BCIs and most likely RICS
> members or dimilar. It's a tough and quite expensive qualification to get.
> I know what's in the draft report format as released to the "trade", and it
> most certianly won't be a rubber stamp exercise.
>
>
I'll see what happens. I have serious doubts about the whole process.
[ If
the person producing the report is capable of assessing the whole range of
structural legal and technical aspects they will be a seriously elite
bunch (being something of an solicitor, building surveyor, structural
engineer, gas installer and electrician). ]
>>
>> [1] I've spoken to a number of people in the 'trade' (of house
>> letting/management/selling) almost all are of the opinion that the
>> purchasers won't trust a report commissioned and paid for by the vendor.
>>
>
> It's not necessarily commissioned and paid for by the vendor, for one thing,
> although it is their responsibility to ensure it happens. And there are very
> stringent quality controls on the content and format. The HCR will be
> something of a half way house between a drive by valuation and a full blown
> structural survey. Many buyers STILL only have valuation surveys done, more
> fool them, so a HIP will be better than many current positions.
It really depends on the situation. I bought a flat without any survey.
This however was in a managed block. I did however look over the
management accounts very carefully to see what if anything was causing any
problems.
Of course I knew that the price was about right (for the previous week!)
so and a full structural survey would have told me nothing I could already
see.
A HIP would have stated the electrics as totally finished, whereas my
quick glance said low average. At the state of the market, then, the
price would have gone up by the cost of the rewire in about the same time
it took to argue about it!
--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Ali Hopkins
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:54:21 +0000, Ali Hopkins wrote:
>>
>>
> I'll see what happens. I have serious doubts about the whole process.
> [ If
> the person producing the report is capable of assessing the whole range of
> structural legal and technical aspects they will be a seriously elite
> bunch (being something of an solicitor, building surveyor, structural
> engineer, gas installer and electrician). ]
Each component will be produced by the separate professions, as it were -
which isn't that different from what happens now in the ideal case. The
difference is that they will be assembled in to one HIP and available to all
buyers. So, the CON29 will be done by the solicitor, HCR by the HCI and so
on.
>
> It really depends on the situation. I bought a flat without any survey.
> This however was in a managed block. I did however look over the
> management accounts very carefully to see what if anything was causing any
> problems.
> Of course I knew that the price was about right (for the previous week!)
> so and a full structural survey would have told me nothing I could already
> see.
I think you were very brave. I do hope you had a full search done.
Ali
Andy Hall
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>"Ed Sirett" <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pan.2005.12.26....@makewrite.demon.co.uk...
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:54:21 +0000, Ali Hopkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> I'll see what happens. I have serious doubts about the whole process.
>> [ If
>> the person producing the report is capable of assessing the whole range of
>> structural legal and technical aspects they will be a seriously elite
>> bunch (being something of an solicitor, building surveyor, structural
>> engineer, gas installer and electrician). ]
>
>Each component will be produced by the separate professions, as it were -
>which isn't that different from what happens now in the ideal case. The
>difference is that they will be assembled in to one HIP and available to all
>buyers. So, the CON29 will be done by the solicitor, HCR by the HCI and so
>on.
>
Hmm.... So jobs for the boys and jobs for the jobsworths, all in a
cosy bureaucratic framework to make sure that taxes are paid and
policed by yet more civil servants ....... and it still doesn't
address the fundamental commercial flaw of being paid for by the
seller.
What a crock....
--
.andy
Ali Hopkins
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:o3a0r1114pjip4qol...@4ax.com...
I think you've missed a point or two here. Solicitors, conveyancers and
surveyors weren't civil servants last time I checked. The companies
offering HIPS are very large commercial companies, who are quite happy to so
so. NONE of the cost of a HIP is a tax, it will all go to commercial
companies. The HCR training companies are also commercial. The only public
sector involvement is the Land Charges Search, which is already done for any
property. And, those searches may well be done as personal searches, which
is a huge *commercial* industry. (If you get a CON 29 local authority one,
they are more thorough, but the fee paid to the LA in no way covers the cost
of provision, btw.)
And how is it flawed to have one single HIP paid for by one individual? The
alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done now -
and that is plainly daft. This system, btw, works very well indeed in other
parts of the world, and is similar to the far more sensible Scottish
paradigm. I think the jobsworths are those who oppose change for the sake of
opposing it, and because it scares them. That's not aimed at you, btw, but
some of the "professionals" who have been quite absurd in their
scaremongering.
I am constantly amazed at how people buy the biggest purchase of their lives
and don't do proper due diligence......
Ali
Fentoozler
Notification" for each gas appliance (unsure about pipework) installed from
April 2005, a DIY'er is unable to obtain a certificate as only CORGI
registered installers can (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an installer).
Indeed, a couple of years down the road, and I believe any gas appliance
sold will be traceable, thus making DIY appliance installation very
difficult. OFTEC have also recently introduced a certification scheme and I
guess will follow the same path as CORGI.
Angus
PS: Just checked the CORGI Consumer website, and under the "Gas & the Law"
heading, in a link found under the "Don't DIY" section, I found this text...
"The rules around gas have changed to protect you and your family further
There are two important changes in regulations, which affect all homeowners
with gas appliances. These are designed to protect you further. If you are
having a gas appliance installed or replaced, this is how the new rules
affect you:
You will now receive a safety certificate (called a Declaration of Safety)
from CORGI after a gas appliance has been installed. Please keep this safe
as it proves the appliance has been installed by a professional. It will
also form an essential part of the Home Information Pack, to be a legal
requirement in England and Wales from 2007.
For more information about the introduction of the Home Information Pack
visit www.odpm.gov.uk . The Scottish Executive is introducing a similar
initiative for householders in Scotland called "Single Survey" scheme, for
further information visit www.scotland.gov.uk
You may also need to inform your Local Authority Building Control department
of the work. This will have to be inspected and will cost up to £300.
However, by using a CORGI Registered Installer that is able to self-certify,
Local Building Control will be notified directly which should offer you
significant savings. Check the back of your Installers ID card and look for
the words, 'energy efficiency'. This applies to England and Wales only, ask
your CORGI Registered Installer if Building Regulations is relevant to your
work."
Maybe this RFD should be for a group called uk.tech.heating-appliances, as
it looks as though DIY gas work will be limited to pipework only in the near
future, if not outlawed by CORGI altogether???!!!
Andy Hall
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:o3a0r1114pjip4qol...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:02:05 -0000, "Ali Hopkins"
>> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>Each component will be produced by the separate professions, as it were -
>>>which isn't that different from what happens now in the ideal case. The
>>>difference is that they will be assembled in to one HIP and available to
>>>all
>>>buyers. So, the CON29 will be done by the solicitor, HCR by the HCI and
>>>so
>>>on.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm.... So jobs for the boys and jobs for the jobsworths, all in a
>> cosy bureaucratic framework to make sure that taxes are paid and
>> policed by yet more civil servants ....... and it still doesn't
>> address the fundamental commercial flaw of being paid for by the
>> seller.
>>
>
>I think you've missed a point or two here. Solicitors, conveyancers and
>surveyors weren't civil servants last time I checked.
I haven't missed any points. I didn't say that they were.
> The companies
>offering HIPS are very large commercial companies, who are quite happy to so
>so.
I'm sure they are.
>NONE of the cost of a HIP is a tax, it will all go to commercial
>companies. The HCR training companies are also commercial. The only public
>sector involvement is the Land Charges Search, which is already done for any
>property. And, those searches may well be done as personal searches, which
>is a huge *commercial* industry. (If you get a CON 29 local authority one,
>they are more thorough, but the fee paid to the LA in no way covers the cost
>of provision, btw.)
>
>And how is it flawed to have one single HIP paid for by one individual?
Because it is paid for by the vendor. Are you commercially naive or
something?
>The
>alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done now -
>and that is plainly daft.
The existing system works perfectly well. All that is being done here
is to add in a cost of sale which most people don't want and is
fundamentally flawed.
> This system, btw, works very well indeed in other
>parts of the world, and is similar to the far more sensible Scottish
>paradigm. I think the jobsworths are those who oppose change for the sake of
>opposing it, and because it scares them. That's not aimed at you, btw, but
>some of the "professionals" who have been quite absurd in their
>scaremongering.
>
>I am constantly amazed at how people buy the biggest purchase of their lives
>and don't do proper due diligence......
>
I agree with you there. However, the principle of caveat emptor
should always apply and this does not address that issue.
--
.andy
Dr Zoidberg
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:12:26 -0000, "Ali Hopkins"
> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> NONE of the cost of a HIP is a tax, it will all go to commercial
>> companies. The HCR training companies are also commercial. The only
>> public sector involvement is the Land Charges Search, which is
>> already done for any property. And, those searches may well be done
>> as personal searches, which is a huge *commercial* industry. (If you
>> get a CON 29 local authority one, they are more thorough, but the
>> fee paid to the LA in no way covers the cost of provision, btw.)
>>
>> And how is it flawed to have one single HIP paid for by one
>> individual?
>
> Because it is paid for by the vendor. Are you commercially naive or
> something?
So your whole argument is that these surveyors will hear the vendor saying
"here's an extra twenty quid" and ignore the obvious structural faults ,
even though they could be liable if their report is shown to be negligent or
otherwise in error.
>> The
>> alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done
>> now - and that is plainly daft.
>
> The existing system works perfectly well. All that is being done here
> is to add in a cost of sale which most people don't want and is
> fundamentally flawed.
But as 99% of people are also buying at the same time it also introduces a
saving as well, and under the present system each time a survey is done and
the sale does not complete this is money wasted that would not be done under
the new one.
--
Alex
Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk
Ali Hopkins
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41cb66F...@individual.net...
> Andy Hall wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:12:26 -0000, "Ali Hopkins"
>> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>> And how is it flawed to have one single HIP paid for by one
>>> individual?
>>
>> Because it is paid for by the vendor. Are you commercially naive or
>> something?
>
> So your whole argument is that these surveyors will hear the vendor saying
> "here's an extra twenty quid" and ignore the obvious structural faults ,
> even though they could be liable if their report is shown to be negligent
> or otherwise in error.
Precisely. And, of vourse, the vendor would be criminally liable as well.
One of the Fraud Acts, hm?
>
>>> The
>>> alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done
>>> now - and that is plainly daft.
>>
>> The existing system works perfectly well. All that is being done here
>> is to add in a cost of sale which most people don't want and is
>> fundamentally flawed.
>
> But as 99% of people are also buying at the same time it also introduces a
> saving as well, and under the present system each time a survey is done
> and the sale does not complete this is money wasted that would not be done
> under the new one.
>
It's also aimed at cutting the number of sales that simply fall through due
to our insane current process. I don't have the precise figures to hand, but
it's around the thirty percent mark. The goal is to drastically reduce the
time and hence the risk. There's also a lot of work being done on chain
analysis, too. The aim is to move to full blown e-conveyancing, which works
very well in places like British Columbia.
Ali
Andy Hall
<AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>Andy Hall wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:12:26 -0000, "Ali Hopkins"
>> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>> NONE of the cost of a HIP is a tax, it will all go to commercial
>>> companies. The HCR training companies are also commercial. The only
>>> public sector involvement is the Land Charges Search, which is
>>> already done for any property. And, those searches may well be done
>>> as personal searches, which is a huge *commercial* industry. (If you
>>> get a CON 29 local authority one, they are more thorough, but the
>>> fee paid to the LA in no way covers the cost of provision, btw.)
>>>
>>> And how is it flawed to have one single HIP paid for by one
>>> individual?
>>
>> Because it is paid for by the vendor. Are you commercially naive or
>> something?
>
>So your whole argument is that these surveyors will hear the vendor saying
>"here's an extra twenty quid" and ignore the obvious structural faults ,
>even though they could be liable if their report is shown to be negligent or
>otherwise in error.
>
Two points.
It is bad commercial practice for a purchase on this scale to rely on
any form of quality report, survey or anything else unless one pays
for it. As a potential purchaser, *I* want to be in control of what
is surveyed and under what basis, ans *I* want to pay for it.... not
the vendor and especially not the government.
A set of surveys done to a standard formula will become a rubber
stamping exercise where the suppliers of them will have standard
paragraphs of weasel words designed to protect them.
>>> The
>>> alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done
>>> now - and that is plainly daft.
>>
>> The existing system works perfectly well. All that is being done here
>> is to add in a cost of sale which most people don't want and is
>> fundamentally flawed.
>
>But as 99% of people are also buying at the same time it also introduces a
>saving as well, and under the present system each time a survey is done and
>the sale does not complete this is money wasted that would not be done under
>the new one.
I would rather waste a few hundred quid on an abortive survey than to
trust something commissioned by the vendor under government
guidelines.
--
.andy
Paul Harper
wrote:
>I would rather waste a few hundred quid on an abortive survey than to
>trust something commissioned by the vendor under government
>guidelines.
Absolutely. Hopefully my next house move will be to Spain, but if it
in this country, an expense of a few hundred pounds in an overall
investment of several hundred thousand is worth it.
Andy Hall
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:41cb66F...@individual.net...
>> Andy Hall wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:12:26 -0000, "Ali Hopkins"
>>> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>>> And how is it flawed to have one single HIP paid for by one
>>>> individual?
>>>
>>> Because it is paid for by the vendor. Are you commercially naive or
>>> something?
>>
>> So your whole argument is that these surveyors will hear the vendor saying
>> "here's an extra twenty quid" and ignore the obvious structural faults ,
>> even though they could be liable if their report is shown to be negligent
>> or otherwise in error.
>
>Precisely. And, of vourse, the vendor would be criminally liable as well.
>One of the Fraud Acts, hm?
>
Oh yes of course. Do you really believe that there won't be standard
library paragraphs of descriptions that will sound convincing to a
potential purchaser but which mean bugger all and certainly can't be
followed up legally?
The moment that you have something like this paid for by a vendor, the
opportunity for corruption exists. I am not suggesting that it will
often take place, but it is nevertheless there because the purchaser
is neither paying for, nor selecting the organisation doing the work.
>>
>>>> The
>>>> alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done
>>>> now - and that is plainly daft.
>>>
>>> The existing system works perfectly well. All that is being done here
>>> is to add in a cost of sale which most people don't want and is
>>> fundamentally flawed.
>>
>> But as 99% of people are also buying at the same time it also introduces a
>> saving as well, and under the present system each time a survey is done
>> and the sale does not complete this is money wasted that would not be done
>> under the new one.
>>
>
>It's also aimed at cutting the number of sales that simply fall through due
>to our insane current process. I don't have the precise figures to hand, but
>it's around the thirty percent mark. The goal is to drastically reduce the
>time and hence the risk. There's also a lot of work being done on chain
>analysis, too. The aim is to move to full blown e-conveyancing, which works
>very well in places like British Columbia.
>
It does not require an overly complex, formulaic, government sponsored
gravy train to achieve this. All that would be required is to alter
the order in which things happen.
The simple formula is that offers are made on a property. Included in
the offer are any conditions that the purchaser wishes to specify -
e.g. subject to surveys, financing and a time limit. Once the vendor
accepts the offer, he may not place the property back on the market.
Equally, the purchaser does have to proceed with the surveys etc. in
the offer.
This means that the vendor can evaluate the whole offer and choose
rather than having government meddling and unnecessary extra cost.
The purchaser chooses his own set of surveys and satisfies himself,
based on criteria that he and his professional advisor decide on - not
the vendor and the government.
--
.andy
kat
Ali Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> said
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:41cb66F...@individual.net...
>> Andy Hall wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:12:26 -0000, "Ali Hopkins"
>>> <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>>> And how is it flawed to have one single HIP paid for by one
>>>> individual?
>>>
>>> Because it is paid for by the vendor. Are you commercially naive or
>>> something?
>>
>> So your whole argument is that these surveyors will hear the vendor
>> saying "here's an extra twenty quid" and ignore the obvious
>> structural faults , even though they could be liable if their report
>> is shown to be negligent or otherwise in error.
>
> Precisely. And, of vourse, the vendor would be criminally liable as
> well. One of the Fraud Acts, hm?
And naturally that makes it all right. I don't know, I don't think I'd want
the hassle of having to sue and anyway, without another report it might be
difficult proving some things.
I don't think the risk is that the vendor will be doing bungs, rather that
the buyer can't be sure, and might feel happier having it all done again, by
someone employed by himself and therefore clearly on his side.
>
>>
>>>> The
>>>> alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done
>>>> now - and that is plainly daft.
>>>
>>> The existing system works perfectly well. All that is being done
>>> here is to add in a cost of sale which most people don't want and is
>>> fundamentally flawed.
>>
>> But as 99% of people are also buying at the same time it also
>> introduces a saving as well, and under the present system each time
>> a survey is done and the sale does not complete this is money wasted
>> that would not be done under the new one.
>>
>
> It's also aimed at cutting the number of sales that simply fall
> through due to our insane current process. I don't have the precise
> figures to hand, but it's around the thirty percent mark. The goal is
> to drastically reduce the time and hence the risk. There's also a lot
> of work being done on chain analysis, too. The aim is to move to full
> blown e-conveyancing, which works very well in places like British
> Columbia.
We did it by post last time. It was fascinating, because we took more
notice of what we were sent by the solicitor, rather than sitting in his
office just signing where he said sign. I spent a happy hour reading the
deeds. Be a shame not to have those any more.
--
kat
>^..^<
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>The moment that you have something like this paid for by a vendor, the
>opportunity for corruption exists. I am not suggesting that it will
>often take place, but it is nevertheless there because the purchaser
>is neither paying for, nor selecting the organisation doing the work.
Works well enough for cars with the MOT certificate.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
John Rumm
> The moment that you have something like this paid for by a vendor, the
> opportunity for corruption exists. I am not suggesting that it will
> often take place, but it is nevertheless there because the purchaser
> is neither paying for, nor selecting the organisation doing the work.
You won't even require corruption as such. If you do your own survey and
it finds things you would rather not make public, you can simply have
more done until you find one that fails to identify the major faults.
You can then truthfully present the results of that survey and discard
the rest.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Ali Hopkins
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:43b12192$0$63060$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> Andy Hall wrote:
>
>> The moment that you have something like this paid for by a vendor, the
>> opportunity for corruption exists. I am not suggesting that it will
>> often take place, but it is nevertheless there because the purchaser
>> is neither paying for, nor selecting the organisation doing the work.
>
> You won't even require corruption as such. If you do your own survey and
> it finds things you would rather not make public, you can simply have more
> done until you find one that fails to identify the major faults. You can
> then truthfully present the results of that survey and discard the rest.
>
At about £300 for the survey element, it might just be cheaper to fix it....
!
Ali
DJC
> Message-ID: <j822r1hn7iljv1a85...@4ax.com> from Andy Hall
> contained the following:
>>The moment that you have something like this paid for by a vendor, the
>>opportunity for corruption exists. I am not suggesting that it will
>>often take place, but it is nevertheless there because the purchaser
>>is neither paying for, nor selecting the organisation doing the work.
> Works well enough for cars with the MOT certificate.
And an MOT proves nothing. Buying a cr 'with long MOT' merely means you
may get away with driving a working but unsafe car for several months
until it fails ts next MOT. And that's assuming the MOT is genuine.
--
David Clark
$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"
Douglas de Lacey
I think it's an excellent idea for all discussion of uk.tech.heating to
be done on both uk.net.news.config and uk.d-i-y. But I doubt that those
avidly scannig uk.net.news.config are terribly interested in MOTs or
surveys of Spanish houses (frex). (Actually they aren't very d-i-y
relevant either.) Please trim the headers to your posts if you aren't
actually discussing uk.tech.heating. FWIW I think a uk.tech.heating
group would be interesting for me though I have no qualifications or
CORGI registration; however I suspect if it doesn't come about then
those who might have used it would post in uk.d-i-y anyway.
fu set to uk.d-i-y since I suspect most responses will not be relevant
to uk.net.news.config
Douglas de Lacey.
Tony Bryer
> Absolutely. Hopefully my next house move will be to Spain, but if it
> in this country, an expense of a few hundred pounds in an overall
> investment of several hundred thousand is worth it.
According to reports only 20% of people agree with you; the rest just
rely on the mortgage valuation.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]
Wm...
uk.net.news.config kat <kat....@ntlworld.com>
>We did it by post last time. It was fascinating, because we took more
>notice of what we were sent by the solicitor, rather than sitting in his
>office just signing where he said sign. I spent a happy hour reading the
>deeds. Be a shame not to have those any more.
I've always thought things like that should be accompanied by tea or
coffee rather than cocktails.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
Paul Harper
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:33:20 +0000 Paul Harper wrote :
>> Absolutely. Hopefully my next house move will be to Spain, but if it
>> in this country, an expense of a few hundred pounds in an overall
>> investment of several hundred thousand is worth it.
>
>According to reports only 20% of people agree with you; the rest just
>rely on the mortgage valuation.
That's their choice. The 20% that agree with me are probably the 20%
in my price bracket.
kat
Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> said
> Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:41:18 <41cghrF...@individual.net>
> uk.net.news.config kat <kat....@ntlworld.com>
>
>> We did it by post last time. It was fascinating, because we took
>> more notice of what we were sent by the solicitor, rather than
>> sitting in his office just signing where he said sign. I spent a
>> happy hour reading the deeds. Be a shame not to have those any more.
>
> I've always thought things like that should be accompanied by tea or
> coffee rather than cocktails.
It was happy because I was in bed. ;-)
--
kat
>^..^<
Wm...
uk.net.news.config kat <kat....@ntlworld.com>
I am sure It was. No accounting for pet names.
Ali Hopkins
"Paul Harper" <pa...@harper.net> wrote in message
news:lti2r1dcl1itluchi...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:59:27 GMT, Tony Bryer <to...@delme.sda.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:33:20 +0000 Paul Harper wrote :
>
>>> Absolutely. Hopefully my next house move will be to Spain, but if it
>>> in this country, an expense of a few hundred pounds in an overall
>>> investment of several hundred thousand is worth it.
>>
>>According to reports only 20% of people agree with you; the rest just
>>rely on the mortgage valuation.
>
> That's their choice. The 20% that agree with me are probably the 20%
> in my price bracket.
>
And the ones with sense, frankly. Mortgage "surveys" are of no use
whatsoever in assessing what might be needed to be done on a house.
Ali
Paul Harper
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>And the ones with sense, frankly. Mortgage "surveys" are of no use
>whatsoever in assessing what might be needed to be done on a house.
Especially when you consider that the purpose of a mortgage valuation
is not to value the property, but to assess the risk to the lender.
kat
Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> said
> Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:39:55 <41d21oF...@individual.net>
> uk.net.news.config kat <kat....@ntlworld.com>
>
>> In news:mQ4UPkH+YUsDFwSU@[127.0.0.1],
>> Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> said
>>> Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:41:18 <41cghrF...@individual.net>
>>> uk.net.news.config kat <kat....@ntlworld.com>
>>>
>>>> We did it by post last time. It was fascinating, because we took
>>>> more notice of what we were sent by the solicitor, rather than
>>>> sitting in his office just signing where he said sign. I spent a
>>>> happy hour reading the deeds. Be a shame not to have those any
>>>> more.
>>>
>>> I've always thought things like that should be accompanied by tea or
>>> coffee rather than cocktails.
>>
>> It was happy because I was in bed. ;-)
>
> I am sure It was. No accounting for pet names.
There nust be worse. :-)
--
kat
>^..^<
fred
<9uqdnTmpJ6SDOzbe...@pipex.net>
angusm...@hotmail.com "Nick Booth" wrote:
> I am pleased and interested with everyone's comments so far, and would
> gladly welcome any comments/suggestions regarding the best route to advance
> this request, changes etc. I want to work with you all to try and get this
> group created.
I think you'd be better off with a few more people saying they would
subscribe to the group on a permanent basis. Most of the interest I've
seen so far is from people who think having the group would be a good
idea so they could use it when their central heating breaks. If the
people who would be subscribing and using the group all the time could
say that they will be subscribing it will show the group will be
supported and remove lack of support as possible grounds for someone to
object to a fast track.
--
ô
õçîd
Dr Zoidberg
Then there is absolutely nothing to stop you looking at the Vendor
instigated survey , and if the house looks ok and you wish to know more you
can pay for as much or as little as you like in the way of extra checks.
> A set of surveys done to a standard formula will become a rubber
> stamping exercise where the suppliers of them will have standard
> paragraphs of weasel words designed to protect them.
The same could be said of the current surveys , and many of the checks are
things like local authority searches that will be exactly the same no matter
who paid
>
>>>> The
>>>> alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done
>>>> now - and that is plainly daft.
>>>
>>> The existing system works perfectly well. All that is being done
>>> here is to add in a cost of sale which most people don't want and is
>>> fundamentally flawed.
>>
>> But as 99% of people are also buying at the same time it also
>> introduces a saving as well, and under the present system each time
>> a survey is done and the sale does not complete this is money wasted
>> that would not be done under the new one.
>
> I would rather waste a few hundred quid on an abortive survey than to
> trust something commissioned by the vendor under government
> guidelines.
It often isn't just a few hundred quid though.
Depending on how far long things have got the cost can be thousands which
wouldn't have been needed if more information was available from the start.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net>
>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:09:09 -0000, "Ali Hopkins"
><fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>And the ones with sense, frankly. Mortgage "surveys" are of no use
>>whatsoever in assessing what might be needed to be done on a house.
>
>Especially when you consider that the purpose of a mortgage valuation
>is not to value the property, but to assess the risk to the lender.
While what Paul says may be true I can't see what it has to do with
group creation.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config kat <kat....@ntlworld.com>
>In news:fCs6LtLvjVsDFwkk@[127.0.0.1],
>Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> said
>> Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:39:55 <41d21oF...@individual.net>
>> uk.net.news.config kat <kat....@ntlworld.com>
>>
>>> In news:mQ4UPkH+YUsDFwSU@[127.0.0.1],
>>> Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> said
>>>> Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:41:18 <41cghrF...@individual.net>
>>>> uk.net.news.config kat <kat....@ntlworld.com>
>>>>
>>>>> We did it by post last time. It was fascinating, because we took
>>>>> more notice of what we were sent by the solicitor, rather than
>>>>> sitting in his office just signing where he said sign. I spent a
>>>>> happy hour reading the deeds. Be a shame not to have those any
>>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> I've always thought things like that should be accompanied by tea or
>>>> coffee rather than cocktails.
>>>
>>> It was happy because I was in bed. ;-)
>>
>> I am sure It was. No accounting for pet names.
>
>There nust be worse. :-)
Die (d-i-y) must be amongst them.
Andy Hall
<AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>> So your whole argument is that these surveyors will hear the vendor
>>> saying "here's an extra twenty quid" and ignore the obvious
>>> structural faults , even though they could be liable if their report
>>> is shown to be negligent or otherwise in error.
>>>
>>
>> Two points.
>>
>> It is bad commercial practice for a purchase on this scale to rely on
>> any form of quality report, survey or anything else unless one pays
>> for it. As a potential purchaser, *I* want to be in control of what
>> is surveyed and under what basis, ans *I* want to pay for it.... not
>> the vendor and especially not the government.
>
>Then there is absolutely nothing to stop you looking at the Vendor
>instigated survey , and if the house looks ok and you wish to know more you
>can pay for as much or as little as you like in the way of extra checks.
What a waste of time and money for the vendor! The cost will of
course be passed on to the purchaser in effect, and now the purchaser
pays twice.
>
>> A set of surveys done to a standard formula will become a rubber
>> stamping exercise where the suppliers of them will have standard
>> paragraphs of weasel words designed to protect them.
>
>The same could be said of the current surveys , and many of the checks are
>things like local authority searches that will be exactly the same no matter
>who paid
That depends on whether the purchaser specifies the survey.
>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> alternative is that each buyer commissions a HIP - much as is done
>>>>> now - and that is plainly daft.
>>>>
>>>> The existing system works perfectly well. All that is being done
>>>> here is to add in a cost of sale which most people don't want and is
>>>> fundamentally flawed.
>>>
>>> But as 99% of people are also buying at the same time it also
>>> introduces a saving as well, and under the present system each time
>>> a survey is done and the sale does not complete this is money wasted
>>> that would not be done under the new one.
>>
>> I would rather waste a few hundred quid on an abortive survey than to
>> trust something commissioned by the vendor under government
>> guidelines.
>
>It often isn't just a few hundred quid though.
>Depending on how far long things have got the cost can be thousands which
>wouldn't have been needed if more information was available from the start.
That is why there should be a conditional agreement at the start of
the purchase to which the vendor and purchaser agree - a simple fix
rather than yet another government sponsored gravy train.
--
.andy