After a Corgi registered Engineer/Professionals Opinion

[Outlawz]

Hi,

Just to fill you in briefly i rent my property and therefore my boiler is service and maintained by My landlord and any subcontractors they use

the boiler is a Baxi Solo 2 40pf i believe

in December the fan assembly in the combustion box was changed and that remedied an issue with the boiler not functioning correctly.

On the 23 of March this year i had to call the landlord to report a further fault of the boiler (it has been troublesome throughout the tenancy) and a different engineer came and immediately condemned the unit due to the Flue restrictor missing off the back of this fan, now currently to this date i have had no boiler due to this issue and after several promises im still stuck at square one.

Now to try and get my landlord to pull his finger out of his backside i spoke to a few people who claim they know what they talking about but i need to make sure, now as my boiler ran from december through to 23rd March this year without this flue restrictor I am told that this is extremely dangerous and this could cause gasses that are ommited by the fan to seap back into the boiler to an ignition source now if that is the case im assuming that means a expolosion/fire risk??

Does this sound correct and is there any site or source i can use to back up andy dangers lack of effiency or anything to present to my landlord asap

Will appreciate any help anyone can give me

Thanks

 

[picasso]

withhold your rent until he gets your boiler fixed , you shouldent have to provide proof that the boiler is dangerous, its the landlords responsability to provide basic services.

its gas safe now corgi have been demoted to internet plumbers merchants.

 

[Agile]

This is a common argument advanced by people that a boiler has worked successfully for the last three months.

Do you really think that a policeman seeing your bald tyre would be swayed from pointing you just because you had not skidded and hit anything for the last three months?

The allegation is that the flue restrictor has not been fitted with the new fan. Thats classed as At Risk because its not the correct combustion conditions.

 

[snb]

the fan restrictor is only required for short horizontal flue applications and maybe removed . i have had to remove them on many 60,70,80 versions with baxi approval due to poor combustion or high winds facing the terminal.

As far as safety is concerned it will not affect the operation . But it will affect it combustion performance making it have too much excess air and therefore reducing efficiency.

 

[Agile]

Yes, but until the boiler operation has been checked and the manufacturer confirmed that it can be modified then its correctly classified as At Risk.

Surprising that he got as far inside to see that though.

Tony

 

[Outlawz]

So at this point we are just looking at it not running as efficiently then my question is then was he right to condemn the boiler if its just an effiecency problem the comment about the possibility of it being a fire risk did come from a corgi registered engineer thats why im looking into this further, i havent withheld my rent as i would be in breach of contract for that however i am asking for a compensation rate as he has not provided or kept to his end of keeping a service in good running order. by a clever use of the word reckless endangerment in my complaints letter. i just need some more worst case scenarios in case he decides to go back on his word of a new boiler because he has been known to do so.

Im not intend on suing the guy i just want a suitation where i dont need the hassle of boiling the water in a kettle to have hot water

 

[namsag]

Restrictor ring stops flame lift off and baffling out and in some cases can be removed and work perfectly , did they take combustion reading to say it was not burning properly.

Fire risk not really,
explosion . Possible explosive ignition which can make a bit of a bang within the boiler but its not going to take the house down

Restrictor rings dont come with the new fan so if there was one fitted then it is probably stuck to the old fan

 

[Agile]

So at this point we are just looking at it not running as efficiently then my question is then was he right to condemn the boiler if its just an effiecency problem the comment about the possibility of it being a fire risk did come from a corgi registered engineer thats why im looking into this further

I am sorry that you dont seem to want to take my advice and even seem not to have read my reply.

To repeat, ( why should I have to ? ) in my view he acted correctly within our rules to turn it off because there was a combustion related part missing.

Its very possible that further investigation/testing would conclude that it could be left working. But until that was done he has acted correctly.

You also have to take into account what his remit was and what he was paid to do.

Tony

 

[Outlawz]

Agile i indeed noted your reply but to go all cryptic about a tyre wasn't really helping the matter im more concerned on the fact that what the original engineer did in December than the one who condemned the boiler.

have had different views from different engineers from the same company as to the state of whether the boiler should have been condemned

I have no intention of causing issues for such engineer or anyone related to the issue so there's no inert need to protect "your own" in a matter of speaking i just want my essential necessities back up and running in a safe manner asap.

If i wanted to cause an issue i could of cause ask my brother who is a Corgi registered boiler and heating engineer and be done with it but I am after a clear and concise independent view which so far, the guy who mention ignition explosion has been the closest to providing.

To answer his question they haven't done any test on combustion levels or anything such as they appear to be what i would call in my trade "IT" as "part swappers" hence my essential concern at this point .

But thanks for the replies so far

 

[expertgasman]

The real issue here isn't the safety or otherwise of the boiler!

Presumably the RGI was there on a breakdown visit, rather than an LL inspection (to which the great Oracle Tony Agile was alluding)? If this was the case, why didn't he simply order another restrictor ring, and get it sorted? It is ridiculous that you have been left for this period without a working boiler

To be fair to the RGI, he may have given a quote to your LL who has not responded, or agreed to pay. LL can be tricky devils, and I have a very rigid process when dealing with them. He may have submitted the quote to a letting agent, who hasn't passed it on. I think you need to get on the phone to ascertain WHY a return visit hasn't occurred

Did he ID or AR the boiler? If he decided it was immediately dangerous, he is obliged to disconnect with your permission or in the absence of your permission he reports it to the Emergency Service provider. If he ARs it, he should ask your permission to disconnect, but if you refuse he should just turn it off, label and issue paperwork.

At the very most it is AR, but I would have been back within 2 days to rectify.

 

[Diyisfun]

i havent withheld my rent as i would be in breach of contract for that

So isnt the landlord in breach of his contract in supplying a safe gas appliance. or as the case now NO gas appliance.

 

[Agile]

The real issue here isn't the safety or otherwise of the boiler!

At the very most it is AR, but I would have been back within 2 days to rectify.

With a part missing then its AR until further investigated and the usual solution would be fitting the restrictor costing perhaps £5.

The fact that the engineer has not returned does not imply to me that he is to blame but much more likely that the Landlord has not paid him or agreed to pay him.

I would do the same as he did if the Landlord would not pay and I am sure ExpertGM above would do the same thing. We only do work when we are going to get paid!