boiler ventilation

[mysteryman]

A retrospective change to the requirements eighteen years after the original installation does not of itself make the boiler physically dangerous, in my opinion. Either it is safe, or it isn't, and a piece of paper in Westminster or Brussels does not affect that. I therefore can't see that you will gain anything by requesting a refund on your last two services, especially if you are and were happy with the company in all other respects.

By all means get the ventilation up to current standards and carry on being ultra-cautious, but not pernickety.

The legislation is there for good reason, and I am not criticising it. It is good that you do have this checked annually.

 

[bonnanbuidhe]

A retrospective change to the requirements eighteen years after the original installation does not of itself make the boiler physically dangerous, in my opinion. Either it is safe, or it isn't, and a piece of paper in Westminster or Brussels does not affect that. I therefore can't see that you will gain anything by requesting a refund on your last two services, especially if you are and were happy with the company in all other respects.

By all means get the ventilation up to current standards and carry on being ultra-cautious, but not pernickety.

The legislation is there for good reason, and I am not criticising it. It is good that you do have this checked annually.

I cannot agree with what you say. The company concerned will not service the boiler unless I have the ventilation brought up to standard by them; they consider it unsafe. Perhaps they are being pernickety ! And how about HSE ? There seems little point in having standards if we do not adhere to them. I am not competent to make a judgement in the matter, so I am going with HSE which is what the company concerned should have done two years ago.

 

[mysteryman]

I did say perfectly clearly that you should have it brought up to date.

I also said that retrospective legislation does not make the boiler dangerous when it was not dangerous before. Common sense would seem to me to suggest that you are at no more actual risk than you were.

Any company is absolutely right to refuse to service this unless it is altered.

By all means go and thump their desk if you want to - but find someone else first!

You do not have to take my advice if you do not wish to.

 

[bonnanbuidhe]

I did say perfectly clearly that you should have it brought up to date.

I also said that retrospective legislation does not make the boiler dangerous when it was not dangerous before. Common sense would seem to me to suggest that you are at no more actual risk than you were.

Any company is absolutely right to refuse to service this unless it is altered.

By all means go and thump their desk if you want to - but find someone else first!

You do not have to take my advice if you do not wish to.

I agree that you said I should have the installation brought up to date. That wa my intention.

I agree that common sense suggests that I am at no greater risk than I was before the changes in the regulations. However, when you state that the boiler was either safe or unsafe and that a piece of paper would not alter that, you are hoisting yourself with your own petard. Consider:

Question: Is my boiler installation safe ?
Answer: I don't know
Q. How can I determine whether it is safe or not ?
A. See whether it meets the relevant regulations.

Can you suggest an alternative course of action ?

 

[transam]

As I understand it the install has been classified as A.R , meaning at risk !
it was previously refered to , some years ago as PD meaning potentially Dangerous , this definition caused some problems as to the wording there fore it was changed to the less dramatic AR classification !
it should be noted that this AR classification is not always recognised by the courts , were ultimately any decision could or would be made , in a particular case I was involved with , the judge would not recognise the at risk scenario in his view it is either safe to use or not !

 

[bonnanbuidhe]

As I understand it the install has been classified as A.R , meaning at risk !
it was previously refered to , some years ago as PD meaning potentially Dangerous , this definition caused some problems as to the wording there fore it was changed to the less dramatic AR classification !
it should be noted that this AR classification is not always recognised by the courts , were ultimately any decision could or would be made , in a particular case I was involved with , the judge would not recognise the at risk scenario in his view it is either safe to use or not !

The judge has logic on his side. The boiler can only be in one of two conditions. safe or unsafe. To say that something is fairly safe, possibly dangerous and so on is meaningless.

It follows that the HSE regulations should only have two categories with respect to safety, safe and unsafe. To talk of anything betwen these two states is to open up a can of worms because we would end up considering a continuum as opposed to a discrete third state. E.g., is it 99% safe/unsafe or only 10% so ? How about 24% safe ? I can think of no way in which such values could be calculated and, in any event, anything less than 100% safe means unsafe, thus rendering such values meaningless.

Thank you, I'm getting more out of this than advice about my boiler.

 

[transam]

There are in effect 4 classifications 1) ncs ,not to current standards !
2) AR at risk
3) ID immediately dangerous
4)A concern for safety , which is used by ESP providers , emergency service providers , eg Transco , which means that you are advised to get a 2nd opinion ect !

Ultimaely when push comes to shove ? any rgi who may find themselves in court for implementing an AR classification that caused loss or damage to a customer ?? would be on there own ! gas safe previously Corgi ect would not offer any assistance , despite following there written guidelines !

 

[mysteryman]

This all turns upon whether it is at physical or legal risk.

You will need to eliminate the legal risk if you want the boiler servicing in future - and that is essential on an open-flued appliance. It will be checked for safe operation as part of the service.

I suppose that you could check if retrospective legislation is binding upon installations which were correctly installed when new. Corgi, Gas Safe, or British Gas will know.

 

[ChrisR]

It isn't "retrospective legislation".
WHether it's dangerous or not isn't something we have to judge in this instance. It's whether it complied with current legislation at the time.

There are current regulations, which have to be abided by, whether it's sensible or not. Nothing can be ignored just because it's pre-existing. The legislation covers it - simple. Nobody can say "it doesn't matter".

If it wasn't done right last year , in terms of notices or whatever, you have grounds for complaint.
Sometimes on a Landlord's check I pick up something minor I missed previously, to which the answer is
"I missed it so you got away with it for an extra year, lucky you".

 

[mysteryman]

According to what has already been written, it is retrospective legislation.

As regards risk, if you are outside, you are highly unlikely to suffocate. Put your head in a plastic bag, and you will suffocate. The level of risk in anything we do is variable, in spite of what m'learned friend says.

If the boiler was safe when installed, and nothing has changed, then it is likely to be safe now. If the law has changed [or even if it has not - take your pick], nothing has changed in the physical sense.

If, as seems to be the case, regulations have changed, then no-one can legally service the boiler without reporting it faulty by ticking the appropriate box. Otherwise, the installation may need to be changed to suit current regs.

The service man takes on huge legally binding responsibilities when he signs off his work. He doesn't want to be prosecuted by m'learned friend either for failing to comply with regulations - or for killing someone.

You need to get it serviced annually.

 

[transam]

Another question may be what if by implementing an A R situation , you cause loss or finacial damage to a custumer , would the current gas regs or advisary docs , support any rgi , personally I doubt it !!

 

[bonnanbuidhe]

You are right to say that nothing has changed in the physical sense but if the HSE regulations have been updated, what was previously regarded as safe is now considered unsafe and so, in my case, the ventilation area must be increased.

Are changes to the regulations based on experience in the field or not? If based on experience. there can be no arguing against them. If, however, they are not based on experience, then HSE would appear to be acting capriciously or in accordance with an agenda ,to get rid of old boilers for example. Whatever is going on behind the scenes, HSE's regulations appear to be binding or are intended to be.

I feel a letter to HSE coming on because, as I said in a previous post, an installation is either safe or it is not. To say that 95% of the published value is acceptable undermines that value because the question naturally arises as to why 94% or some other value is not acceptable. Also, if 95% is acceptable, why is this figure not published as the value to be adhered to without leeway ?

 

[nickso]

am i missing something or is the current vent of 50% of required free area not 50% of what the manufacturer recommended? if so the boiler has always been "unsafe" but its only recently that the regs were changed to raise the classification to a potentially more serious one. quite rightly IMO. the HSE will probably have raised it due to a death or serious injury. can anyone think why the HSE would have a direct reason to get rid of old boilers? nonsense i think.

off the top of my head the definition of At Risk is a situation that could cause danger to life or property. it's the engineers opinion based on a particular regulation. if you don't agree with that engineers opinion then get another.

IIRC the 90% of free area figure is acceptable because it takes into account the possibility of measuring errors.

 

[CMairiD]

Our ventilation does not meet current standards. Last year it was 50% of the required area and a note was made on our file to this effect. When I asked why we had not been told of this and why we appear to have been left in a dangerous situation, he apologised and said it was an error on his company's part.

The current regulations are such that we need to have 90% of the specified area, such that additional ventilation is required. This tightening of the regulations appears tp be part of a drive to "encourage" people to discard old boilers,

CORGI were warning installers since at least May 2005 (4th edition of Unsafe Sits) that as of 1 June 2008, anything under 90% of required ventilation would be classed as AR (at risk = turn off appliance and advise customer). They also advised that the gas user/responsible person should be advised in writing that this situation should be brought up to current standards.

If you servicing date has remained roughly the same each year (July), then I would suggest this has been missed 2005-2009.

HSE have confirmed what you say. It appears that our installation had been AR for the past two years. A letter received from the company whicjh has serviced our boiler for the last twenty years states that the requirement for 95% ventillation was introduced in "late 2008".I now know that the date was June 2008, which can hardly be called late.

They are also wrong in the percentage. It's 90%, not 95%.

I feel it is reasonable to ask for a refund of what we paid for the last two substandard services. Is this fair ?

IMHO, no, I do not think it fair that they refund your last two year's service fees. A service (not just inspection) is involved work -- particularly on an open flue -- that is more than just checking ventilation.

Given that they have failed to notify you of the importance of upgrading your ventilation since 2005, I would suggest the company offer you some money off this year's service. That doesn't mean a FREE service, but a goodwill gesture wouldn't go amiss, particularly as this company and their engineers should have known since at least May 2005 that 90% ventilation after 1 June 2008 would require them to turn off the boiler and advise the responsible person that continued use, without remedial works, would be considered an offence.

 

[transam]

I think one needs to question the word regulation ?? A regulation as I undestand it is a legally binding document , gas regs , building regs ect , legally binding docs (regs) can only be made by goverment , & not by the HSE or British standards . gas safe ect , as I understand it they can recommend or advise !!
Obviously if one did not adhere to a standard ect & you had to account for it , in say a court than you would need to have pretty good excuse as to why you did not !

Same as this ventilation buissness , at the end of the day it would hinge on the interpretation that a high court judge applied , & this 95% or 91% figure I doubt would hold much sway ?? this type of scenario was predicted by many
in the industry years ago !! a nonsense perhaps ??? or may be not ??

( called sitting on the fence )