Newly installed combi boiler causing pipe leaks

[Norcon]

This is the third one of these threads inside a week.
Though one of the other ones was deemed a "wind-up" by some members.
I think in one of the other threads the op blamed the power flushing as system pressures remained the same.

The installers in this case may have carried out a pressure test before they installed the boiler and the system may have passed their test.
Subsequent power flushing combined with heat could then open up a whole new can of worms in an old corroded system.

In any event the new boiler system is now the pressure tester and its not holding. So thats a problem for the installer and the owner.

 

[jono_h]

Surely even if a low pressure system had been retained the pipes would have continued to corrode under the floor and would have failed in time.
That may have happened years down the line, but I doubt anyone would be looking to blame the installer.

 

[TelBee]

electronicsuk,

regarding what my response would be, had the test revealed a leak:

First and foremost it is hypothetical now because I have doubts whether an adequate test was ever performed. If it did it, it seems quite a coincidence that it passed, but problems occurred with the pipes immediately on first running the boiler (remember that the Institute recommended running the test for a couple of hours).

But I will put myself in that position now. I would hope the test was performed BEFORE installation of the new boiler commenced, so that I did not incur any extra costs if it failed (I would like to hear a reply from any engineer on here who does not believe this is reasonable).

When it did fail presumably I would have the following options:

a) Not have the new boiler installed, but instead retain my existing boiler. There is clearly now a chance the pressure test has exacerbated pipe damage and it might still not work, but I would probably like to have the chance of trying it, on the basis that it had worked with the existing pipes before, and there is a chance that no further damage had taken place as a result of the test. If it subsequently failed then I would have no choice but to make a decision on replacing the pipes.

b) It is possible that the cost of repairing my existing boiler might not be cost efficient, so I would have to swallow the pain of getting the pipes repaired or bypassed. This is quite a feasible outcome, but the important point to me is that I can make a decision PRIOR to the installation going ahead, and therefore which option to chose, instead of being forced down the route of repairing/bypassing pipes, and I would know the costs involved up front (what is the point of performing a test otherwise?).

If the order in which the installation precluded a), I would question the procedure in which the installation took place, i.e. why was the test not performed first before any further installation took place (which seems like sound practice to me).

As I mentioned earlier, the company has been reasonable in coming out to fix leaks, but the cynical part of me questions why they are doing it (when their contract explicitly states that this work is not covered in the cost).

It is possible they know a proper test was not performed, and therefore have some liability. From their point of view, it would have been much better for the test to have been performed and show the problems first. For example, if the option of me retaining my existing boiler was taken up, it would be done with my consent and at my risk (with obvious chance of resulting structural damage).

As I mentioned earlier, someone else I know who had a boiler installed was made very aware when the test would take place, on the insistence that they were present when it occurred, and were also made aware of what would happen when it failed. I was not made aware of any taking place until well after it was installed, and problems became apparent.

The installer purchased the boiler prior to coming to installing, which is fair enough, I am aware that time is money. However if the procedure they followed meant that its' installation took place before adequate tests were performed, I believe then that is their responsibility.

Regarding getting other quotes, thanks for the advice, I have already contacted another (apparently) reputable heating engineer (who comes with many good references) who has quoted to perform the work for less than half the price of the company who supplied the boiler. He has also questioned some aspects of the installation and the advice I have been given by the installation company.

 

[Norcon]

Its quite possible it was already leaking to some extent.
The f&e cistern keeping it topped up.

 

[TelBee]

"There is not any form of non-destructive pressure testing that can be done on existing pipework to establish if it will be suitable for a sealed system".

HeatingMan,

thanks for the input. Are you saying that it is not possible to pressure test existing pipes (either destructively or not) prior to installation?

 

[transam]

Pressure testing existing pipes buried in a screed to see if they will withstand sealed system pressure is a nonsense !

There is always a risk to old systems when carrying out certain works , power flushing being one of them ?

If you are considering sealing up an old system with buried pipes in the screed ?? there is a risk !

If you can't see it (pipes) don't seal it ! or consider useing an exp tank with a nrv , with this method pressures over 1 bar are rarely ( if ever ?) achieved ?? how ever most ?? combis have a low pressure cut off switch which would make them unsuitable for this method ! or the best way is to
use a plate exc so that there is no direct connection from the boiler to the heating system !

 

[heatingman]

yes It is possible to pressure test a system before converting to a sealed system. Contray to your comments I do it frequently.
1) It is an additional cost within the job.
2) The customer is made fully aware that if it fails test they will have an unuseable system and will require re-pipe. AT THEIR EXPENSE.

It is an option I will offer or insist on if system looks suspect or pipes are in concrete or I suspect the customer will try it on at a later date because their system is leaking after they insisted they wanted combi.

Your original installer is trying to help out, it may be written in their T&C about existing pipes. They are offering some goodwill and trying to help you out, we all do it with genuine customers.
I expect if they come across this thread they will adopt a completly different attitude.

 

[xr4x4]

Its quite possible it was already leaking to some extent.
The f&e cistern keeping it topped up.

indeed, i was thinking that.

 

[TelBee]

Its quite possible it was already leaking to some extent.
The f&e cistern keeping it topped up.

Norcon,

I believe that is also quite possible, and if I had chosen to repair my previous boiler, instead of replacing it, the leak could have continued unknown to me.

What I do not know is whether, it being a lower pressure system, it represented a major problem. If I had chosen to keep my system with a leaking pipe that would have been my decision, made at my risk.

But it is irrelevant now anyway, what I am questioning is the installation and testing procedure.

 

[expertgasman]

This episode has highlighted the neccesity of communication, the requirement to ASSUME NOTHING, and above all, paperwork, contracts and signatures.

I NEVER start a job without explaining the process, the charges, and additional charges if certain events occur. Lets face it, a lot of issues are predictable. For example, before powerflushing I deliver two copies of special terms, one to sign and return, the other for the client to retain. Kamco have a standard form, and I have slightly rejigged it for our purpose). I have never had a client refuse to sign and accept. Having said that we enjoy a very good local reputation.

I wonder if the installl co. in this case carried out the paperwork properly, if so the OP has not a leg to whinge upon.

The last two posts are particularly valid. (heatman and 4x4)

 

[heatingman]

Its irrelevant when and if the pressure testing was done.

The system would have leaked and been un-usable.

You have clearly stated you knew the risks involved.

Whatever way you try to spin it, the cost is your responsibillity.

 

[TelBee]

yes It is possible to pressure test a system before converting to a sealed system. Contray to your comments I do it frequently.
1) It is an additional cost within the job.
2) The customer is made fully aware that if it fails test they will have an unuseable system and will require re-pipe. AT THEIR EXPENSE.

It is an option I will offer or insist on if system looks suspect or pipes are in concrete or I suspect the customer will try it on at a later date because their system is leaking after they insisted they wanted combi.

Your original installer is trying to help out, it may be written in their T&C about existing pipes. They are offering some goodwill and trying to help you out, we all do it with genuine customers.
I expect if they come across this thread they will adopt a completly different attitude.

The company subsequently told me that they did perform the test, I find it strange that the boiler failed immediately on first operation (the only possible explanation if the test was performed properly is that that it was an unfortunate coincidence of timing, or some other operation such as flushing caused it).

Re goodwill from the company, I believe that they may well be acting out of goodwill, and I have been extremely patient towards them so far, and have not accused them of anything to date (either to their face or on any of my posts).

All I am trying to determine is if there is any fault on the part of the installer, and if so, should they be liable for the costs of making the system work.

It does not appear unreasonable to me.

A lot posters on here are looking purely from the point of view of an installer. From my point of view, being £3k lighter (and possibly £2k more) for a system that has never worked continuously, waking on several occasions to a downstairs looking like a swimming pool (with the associated damage), I would have to be pretty strange to appear happy with the situation.

 

[TelBee]

I wonder if the installl co. in this case carried out the paperwork properly, if so the OP has not a leg to whinge upon.

The last two posts are particularly valid. (heatman and 4x4)

Expertgasman,

so far the only whinging I have seen has been on the part of engineers on here because their practices are being questioned. I have been primarily asking questions about what practices should be expected to occur when a combi is installed.

So from your post, can I infer that if "carried out the paperwork properly" was not the case then I do have a leg to stand on?

If someone had communicated the risks to me in the manner you state you operate, then I would be far more prepared to accept my current situation.

 

[TelBee]

Its irrelevant when and if the pressure testing was done.

The system would have leaked and been un-usable.

You have clearly stated you knew the risks involved.

Whatever way you try to spin it, the cost is your responsibillity.

Sorry heatingman, Consumer Direct and the Institute of Heating and Plumbing Engineers do not agree with your view. And it is quite possible that only their opinion ultimately will really matter.

 

[heatingman]

All I am trying to determine is if there is any fault on the part of the installer, and if so, should they be liable for the costs of making the system work

From the information you have supplied


NO