A story of 2 services

[amfisted]

I was going to entitle this thread A Tale of Two Services, but one of the regular contributors to this forum uses a play on that phrase as a screen name, so I chose the less catchy one above to avoid any confusion.

I'd like to ask any RGIs who might come across this thread: which one of the following might you regard as a "full service" on a coal effect gas fire?

1. Remove coals, hoover fire, do the usual tests (I can't remember the names nor relevance of all of them), check flue, check gas meter, clean area, do paperwork and charge 75 quid.

2. Remove coals, remove entire fire assembly, disassemble parts where serviceable and blow through with compressed air using a compressed air pump, put fire back together (including properly securing gas supply pipe which although not leaking was not fully tightened), do flue test , flow test, any other test you can mention, do paperwork and then charge 60 quid.

I've had both, the second just 3 months after the first; basically because both pilot and piezo began to operate unsatisfactorily about two months after service Number 1. I left messages on the answerphone of the engineer who did that first service but he never got back to me, and reckoned it best to cut my losses by contacting someone else.

I'm awfully glad that I did.

 

[Steelmasons]

What do the manufactures service instructions state?

 

[FiremanT]

What do the manufactures service instructions state?

Steel, with sincere respect,have you ever looked at gas fire MI's? They are generally useless.

The question is somewhat loaded, as obviously the 2nd routine is better than the 1st.

The £75 / £60 is largely irrelevant - we all have different charging structures - and I would generally ignore any post carping about rates such as these.

However, it is a requirement when attending an open flue appliance to inspect the flue. I would argue that you cannot do this without at least pulling the gas fire forwards to get sight of the opening - to check for clearances, obstructions and extraneous openings.

The fire may have failed due to a build up of dust and fluff in the pilot, if the pilot/ODS was not cleaned, which I would always clear on a service.

Having said all that, how do you (OP) known he did not check the flue or clear the pilot? A pilot can be blocked by a foreign body immediately after the RGI leaving.

 

[amfisted]

I was happy with the 75 quid service until the pilot and piezo began to fail, and the second service may well have been more detailed because I had informed the second engineer that there were problems with those items. However, like the first engineer (assuming he cleaned those items because he did not disassemble the fire) he could, presumably have left the fire in situ and externally cleaned those items; and that might have sorted the problem. Instead he took the entire assembly out and diligently cleaned it with compressed air. He was here for almost two hours.

I can't say for certain whether the pilot had become blocked after the first engineer left, but it seemed to me that the flame had diminished in strength after his visit. In my non-RGI naivety, I assumed this was to do with the fact that he had cured a slight leak on the pipework, and that the pressure to the pilot had therefore been slightly reduced. In fact I know now that the pilot was in fact almost totally blocked with a build up of debris.


The main point of my post was to try to establish what constitutes a normal service on a gas fire, so that I knew whether to expect Service 1 as normal, and whether Service 2 was in fact exceptional. I still haven't managed to do that, but I have at least found a reliable engineer who gives value for money (perhaps that WAS a "carp"), spends a decent amount of time on the job and, as a bonus, arrived on time.

 

[petit_pablo]

Personally, number 2 is closer to what i would do bar the compressed air bit. I hoover instead.

Not removing the firebox to check catchment space is lazy.

 

[Agile]

The second visit was what I term a repair. I charge more for them but come quicker, usually the same day.

For a job taking two hours and only charging £60 sounds very cheap. Perhaps you just asked for a routine service for which he quoted his usual rate and then you told him when there of the problems.

Annoyingly to me, this site does not insist on people putting their locations as these can have significant significance to the rates charged.

Some areas like Manchester and the NE are apparently significantly cheaper for gas appliance repairs.

Tony

 

[cjard]

Whilst we're on the topic of screen names, is the missing first letter of yours an H or an I?

 

[Steelmasons]

What do the manufactures service instructions state?

Steel, with sincere respect,have you ever looked at gas fire MI's?

Only a few..

 

[FiremanT]

The second visit was what I term a repair. I charge more for them but come quicker, usually the same day.



Tony

So, Tony, you would "service" a fire without inspecting the flue and clearing pilot fluff?

You are a bit of a worry. Have you reigistered yet?

 

[amfisted]

Thanks for your contributions.

First of all, cjard: its an H. No idea at all how it could be an I; that doesn't make for a word I'm familiar with. :0)

Tony, the second engineer has recently opened up a shop/office in our local shopping centre, so having realised that the fire needed further attention, and having also been unable to contact the first engineer, I called in and he happened to be there.

I explained to him the problems we were having with the fire, so presumably he knew the sort of work that would be required. When he said 60 quid then yes, I almost hugged him, although I was still prepared for him to tell me that the price would rise once he'd assessed the condition of the fire.

After he'd been here for an hour I began to worry that I might have misheard him, and that he'd quoted £160. But no, £60 was what he charged, and he also insisted on explaining to me every little detail of the work he was doing, in layman's terms of course, as he went along.

During the first service the engineer had advised me that I should, in his presence, unblock the airbrick vent which the previous owners had covered with a piece of hardboard (I think they had a problem with insect infestation), but the second chap told me, and showed me his "book" to confirm, that because the fire was less than 7kw gross output and the flue was working adequately, then additional ventilation was not required.

I'll most certainly be using him again, and would be happy to endorse his services either personally, on any online forum that I happen to come across.