Can gas pipe develop crack on its own?

[kirkgas]

they cannot prove you cause the leak, so therefore state you feel that there might have been a leak before you moved out there might not, as the house was always ventilated, tell them you have discussed it with several gas engineers and you need an exact report on what was leaking where it was, the type of fitting and what remedial action was taken to rectify it, dont discuss the amount of the bill it isnt your business as you wont be paying it, you might find the guy has made up a bigger story on his job line to justify a bit more time, the contractor might have done the same to increase his invoice, so demand a breakdown of everything, then calmly state as they cant prove you damaged it they cant charge you, go and visit the HA, take a notebook and speak slowly and write everything down then when they answer write everything down, it will un nerve them haha keep us posted

 

[Agile]

At the end of your complaint you can always make a formal complaint and their set procedure needs to be followed and can be escallated almost to the Prime Minister eventually.

If you complain about a bank etc. and you are unhappy with their response then you can take it to the Financial Ombudsman. Amusingly the bank ( not you ) have to pay them £200 whenever you refer a complaint!

 

[lilystyle]

Thanks again guys, this IS fun, isn't it?

We especially like the tip re complaining to higher and higher levels.

We're pasting in the two emails we have sent to Ms Allen this evening (hope we didn't miss any tricks!):

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Dear Ms Allen,

Many thanks for your swift attention to this matter.

We have taken advice from a qualified heating engineer, who is happy to state his opinions to you and, if necessary, other parties, on headed paper. He is of the firm opinion that it would not be possible to cause a leak in this way if the pipe work was sound and that we should not be held responsible for any gas leak that may have occurred.

We have a number of questions to ask you:

1) Can you please clarify whether the alleged leak was in a buried supply pipe which had become exposed or on the cooker connection point?
2) Can you please tell us what the supply pipe and connection point are/were made of?
3) Can you please tell us how old the supply pipe and connection point are/were?
4) Can you please explain why the Gas Safe check was carried out 11 days, not 3 days after we officially vacated the property?
5) Can you please explain how the invoice for fixing the alleged leak amounted to £187.50? This, in the opinion of two qualified heating engineers is excessive to say the least.

Furthermore, as we can demonstrate that we are not culpable for the alleged gas leak and you have stated that the condition the property was left in was satisfactory, we would like our £100 incentive paid as soon as possible.

We look forward to your continued swift response to this matter.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Dear Ms Allen,

In addition to the questions presented in our previous email, we feel it pertinent to raise one further point, as brought to our attention by a qualified heating engineer: it sounds probable that the alleged gas leak was in fact a very slow one and that the smell of gas, detected by the neighbour only after the property had been vacated by us for over a week, would not have been noticeable had the Gas Safe test been carried out by August 23rd, as it should have been. Further, as we had obediently followed your own guidelines and kept the property extremely well ventilated for the duration of our stay in it (as the property is prone to damp and not fitted with extractor fans) it would not have been possible for us to ever detect any gas odour from this slow leak while we were resident in the property. We can not be held culpable for not reporting a slow gas leak that could only have been detected by us had we failed to follow your strict directives on ventilating the property.

We anticipate your continued swift response to this matter and hope that you resolve it to our satisfaction before we feel compelled to take this complaint to a higher level.

 

[conny]

Excellent!

 

[lilystyle]

The HA has now emailed us back stating the following:

1) The supply pipe and connection point are/were made of copper tube with approved copper and brass fittings.

2) The age of the pipe is unknown: they do not hold details of the age of pipe work, only that they comply with current regulations.

3) "The leak was on a horizontal short length of 15mm copper tube, which protruded out through the render and plaster of the kitchen wall, behind the cooker position. The fittings at either end of the short pipe length were leaking. The first being the 1/2" FI x 15mm EF connection, and the second being a 15mm solder ring elbow at the other end of that pipe."

4) Apparently, to locate this, they first practically tore the house apart searching for leaks elsewhere (see below), which justifies, they say, the huge bill. Surely, if the smell of gas was in the kitchen, they should have checked in the kitchen before ripping floor boards up upstairs?

I'm pasting below what they say in detail (it goes on a lot - hope someone's got time to read it all!) Again, feedback would be extremely gratefully received - especially if it shows that we can't be held responsible for the leak:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Initially, at the start of a gas safety check, a let-by and tightness check is carried out on the pipe work installation, with appliances connected. The only appliances connected were the gas boiler upstairs, and the gas wall heater in the hallway. The hallway heater was isolated at the connection. The restrictor elbow to the gas fire was was turned off with no appliance connected. The gas connection point to the cooker was not connected and plugged.

A pressure drop of 4 millibar over 2 minutes, is allowed on that type of installation as long as no gas can be detected by smell.
A pressure drop of 4 millibar over 32 seconds was recorded, which is by no means, a slow leak.
A pressure drop of that amount normally relates to a pilot light being lit, a small hob burner on simmer, a leaking gas valve, or a gas escape where some form of damage has occurred.

The boiler was isolated at the gas valve, and a second test was carried out. Still there was a gas leak.
The supply pipe to the fire position, was disconnected from the threaded steel pipe at the brass joint and the opposite brass connection was capped. A further test was carried out and there remained a gas leak.
The MI connection to the threaded steel tee FI connection was removed and the threaded steel was plugged. A further test still revealed a gas leak.
The Gas supply to the boiler upstairs was traced. The carpet and floorboards upstairs in the boiler cupboard bedroom and landing where lifted to check the gas supply pipe to the boiler for damage.

(This is to check for other possible cause of the leak such as a punctured pipe from a nail, or that a floorboard has rubbed or caused damage to the pipe. It may also have been possible that corrosion through a number of causes had occurred to the pipe. However, no damage was found and the boards were replaced. )

The exposed pipe work to the wall heater, which runs behind the kitchen base units in 10mm soft copper, was checked for leaks with leak detection fluid and nothing was found. LDF was used as opposed to an electronic sniffer, due the electronic readings throughout the house.

The arrangement of fittings at the cooker point were of copper and brass, and the connection to the wall heater came from this point. The wall heater connection was removed by sweating out the joint with a flame, and as a flame was used, the gas meter is required to be removed and the incoming main supply capped.

Following the gas supply to the wall heater being removed, the gas meter was replaced and another gas tightness test still showed a pressure loss.

The meter was removed again and the cooker connection was removed and capped. The meter was replaced, still with a leak. Following the removal of each fitting, done so with a view of re-instating the connection following repair, and limiting any damage to the property, the meter was removed where a flame and hot works were required and refitted, and tested again. The wall was then broken out, surrounding the cooker point and LDF was sprayed onto the fittings in the wall to reveal the points of the leak.

Again the meter was removed and the first brass FI connection was removed and the pipe was capped. The meter was replaced and there was a further leak.
Following the meter being removed again, the copper elbow in the wall, as the pipe dropped from above, was replaced, the horizontal pipe was again replaced and again was capped.
The meter was reinstalled and a final test revealed that there were no further leaks. The vertical drop of copper tube was protected against corrosion.

The gas leak was detected methodically, correctly, and by following the best practice of not causing damage to the property unless absolutely necessary and any damage caused was minimal. It was also carried out in such a manner that the existing supply pipes may at some stage, by the home owner, be reinstated, which they can be.

Work was carried out to detect the leak by first isolating the appliances, then checking exposed pipe and fittings, then checking the more accessible pipe, then removing pipe sections and then finally breaking out the wall. The pressure loss and the point of detecting the leak was videoed and this can be available if required.

The conclusion is that damage was caused on the day of moving out. The tenant would not have been able to smell gas on the day of vacating but the smell built up as the property stood vacant.



Finally in regards to your comment that had been bought to your attention by a qualified gas engineer/s and their query that the cost of the work was excessive, it would have been good practise for them to point out to you that it is clearly very difficult for them to form an informed or accurate opinion of the repair required without having been in the property, seen the installation or examined the measurements from the diagnostic equipment.

Based on the comprehensive information given to us by our engineer we remain satisfied that the damage is your responsibility and as such you do not qualify for the £100 payment. Additionally we are satisfied that £187.50 is a fair and proportionate cost for the amount of investigative work and repair that was carried out. Therefore Plymouth City Council will be invoicing you for this.

Should you not be satisfied with my response, the next step in Tamar Housing Society’s complaints procedure is to formally write to my line manager, detailing why you are not happy with my investigation and my response to your complaint.

 

[calorific]

It does seem that they were methodical, but IMO not very bright. Onw would have thought that the first place to look was the only area that actually got disturbed when you left

After all, if there's a sound of a dripping tap, it's not really normal to go back to the incoming mains and check every appliance for a leak starting from the tank in the loft and working one's way down through the bathroom and all the radiators en route before looking at the kitchen tap, which is where it is dripping

 

[swbjackson]

So they have employed someone who has ripped half of the house apart looking for a gas leak that, in my opinion, would be highly unlikely to have been caused by you. If you had caused the leak there would have been damage evident to the wall surface. Ask to see the pictures of the damage to the wall structure that would have to be fairly extreme to damage a pipe buried beneath the wall. If there was evidence of damage that you did removing your ELECTRIC

 

[swbjackson]

So they have employed someone who has ripped half of the house apart looking for a gas leak that, in my opinion, would be highly unlikely to have been caused by you. If you had caused the leak there would have been damage evident to the wall surface. Ask to see the pictures of the damage to the wall structure that would have to be fairly extreme to damage a pipe buried beneath the wall. If there was evidence of damage that you did removing your ELECTRIC why did the gas engineer hunt the rest of the house first.

This looks like a case of guilty until proven innocent to me. I would write to the line manager but also inform them that you will be contacting your local MP.

 

[baxiengineer]

As has already been mentioned you would have to use a large amount of force to break a properly made joint but even more so if the fitting that the bayonet connector goes in to was both the correct type and fixed properly.

They say an "EF" was used which suggests a solder brass elbo, the only ones I know of have two screw fixings. If this fitting was fixed correctly, it would be impossible to break the joint behind it. The reason why they are fixed with screws to the wall is to prevent the problem that you are now being blamed for. i would therefore suggest that the installation was not within the gas regulations prior to you removing the cooker and that this fact negates any legal duty upon you to pay the bill, as you can demonstrate that it would be impossible to break a solder joint on a fitting secured to a brick wall that had been fixed securely with the appropriate fixings.

Best wishes

 

[lilystyle]

Many thanks again Mike, baxiengineer, calorific: this is just what we needed. Have now drafted a letter to the next guy up the chain listing the points that (in summary):

1) We object to being treated as guilty until proven innocent

2) If the leak was equivalent to a small gas ring on simmer, we would have smelled it when we went back to the proprty 24 hours after we'd removed the cooker and left all the windows closed.

3) That massive force would have been needed to cause the described leaks (unless it wasn't correctly secured to the wall). Do they have a photo of the wall prior to the engineer 'breaking it out'?

4) That the bulk of the amount of labour the Gas Safe engineer has invoiced for appears to have been unnecessary

Have also threatened to take it higher up and to our MP if they continue to accuse us ) Really hope it doesn't come to that, but will keep fighting for as long as it takes

 

[FiremanT]

The exposed pipe work to the wall heater, which runs behind the kitchen base units in 10mm soft copper, was checked for leaks with leak detection fluid and nothing was found. LDF was used as opposed to an electronic sniffer, due the electronic readings throughout the house.


What is this nonsense. Are they saying the house was so full of gas that a snifer could not determinethe source? This thread is making my blood boil. You are bening royally screwed, my friend. A sniffer is designed to trace a source by measuringthe concentration. Most of us use one with an audible siren or bleeper, which increases in volume and tempo as the concentration increases. You follow the rise in volume, and manually adjust the oise downwards as you go. It is completely logical, and may use Leak detector fluid to pinpoint the exact source when you have narrowed it down to within a few inches.

I suspect that they didn't have a sniffer, and introduced the story to deflectthe obvious question as to why they tok so ong to find it. What idiot lifts carpets and boards BEFORE checking visual areas? It is interesting that they disconneted and checked every aplliance and area of pipes before checking the cooker area.

The bottom line, is, though, that normal impacts WILL NOT damage a correctly assembled gas joint.

You are probaby unique in having all (I think) conributors supporting you. There are normally (often unfair) accusations of council house scroungers and customers from hell. Good luck - but I fear that you may give in to avoid a bad record.I hope you don't

 

[Slugbabydotcom]

Solder ring fittings leak
a: If they weren't soldered correctly in the first place
b: If unprotected in a plaster /cement environment where moisture is present resulting in electrolytic action.

Mechanical damage does not cause lead free well soldered joints which are protected from corrosion to fall apart in my experience.


I suggest that the damp has attacked the solder joints!

If this fitting was fixed correctly, it would be impossible to break the joint behind it.

Hear Hear

 

[Agile]

The reply from the HA says that the bayonet position was capped!

Thats not directly relevant to the problem.

However, we know from our experience that a properly soldered joint is stronger than a pipe as its twice the thickness. Based on that I take the view that a properly fitted copper soldered elbow could not leak.

In my view their method of finding the leak was slow and not what any modern engineer would have done.

We have electronic gas sniffers which can easily detect that level of leak. Anyone who does not use them will inevitably take longer. Of course anyone paid by the hour will earn more!

They dont seem to have given you any breakdown of the bill to show how many hours and the hourly rate.

Its a difficult argument about not using an electronic sniffer. I always use them for leak detection after isolating the appliances. I know from experience that most leaks are either at the gas meter or cooker connection. In my view any competent engineer should use whatever techniques enable him to do the job in the shortest time. But many firms and individuals will want to take as long as possible!

Tony

 

[gaswizzard]

But many firms and individuals will want to take as long as possible!

Tony

That's just not the case Tony , MANY RGI's provide a good service for the customer , your starting the 'holier than thou' ****e again so please stop it.

How much would you have charged to diagnose that fault on the potty profile? , my guess being you would of fitted a board first and then charged the customer for a gas valve too.

 

[Madrab]

As SWB & BAX mentions - the one thing they dont seem to mention on the report is if there was any damage/looseness of the bayonet fitting/pipe or damage to the wall where the pipe entered and the fitting was encased prior to them getting the hammers out. As many of the chaps have said, it would take a fair amount of force to damage properly fixed/soldered fittings enuf to cause a leak especially if the offending fittings were fixed solidly on or within a wall.
Hypothetically, if this was in a small claims court then it doesn't sound like they cld prove it was you and it wld be thrown out. It sounds like circumstantial evidence and supposition to justify witholding and dumping the bill on you. If it was me, I'd argue that point too and unless they can produce evidence of any damage to the fitting's/pipework, prior to the wall being broken out, then you can't be held liable.