Flexible flue - is this as complete a bodge as I think it is

[SimonH2]

Hmm, the plot thickens !

I phoned the estate agents this morning to see what the vendor was planning. Predictably he "wasn't very happy" - especially about having the fire turned off which leaves the place without heating while the boiler is also broken.

Apparently the plumber he had in earlier this month replaced the fan in the boiler, but it seems that isn't the issue. The fan "kicks off" (you can hear it spin up for a second or two), and the display goes through (IIRC something like P0 P1 P2 P3). It sort of goes (very quietly) "woof ... woof ... woof" a few times and then gives up.
It's a BG RD532 (Worcester Bosch ?) fitted in 2006 according to the sticker on the front.

As for the flue, apparently the fire was fitted about 5 years ago and the installer had said something along the lines of the flue not being ideal, but acceptable.

Anyway, for both the boiler fault and the flue, he's contacting the company I've been using for my boiler servicing and safety checks to see about getting them sorted.

 

[ollski]

The boiler problem could either be a problem with the gas supply pressure or mabe a problem caused by recent freezing of the condensate pipe. Either way needs a heaing tech in.

 

[expertgasman]

As for the flue, apparently the fire was fitted about 5 years ago and the installer had said something along the lines of the flue not being ideal, but acceptable.

I come across liners in lofts quite often. Last time I spoke to gas Safe, the advice was that if it passed the smoke and spillage tests, it was ok to leave. It is amazing that guys are fitting NEW fires without inspecting the loft.

The worrying aspect of this flue liner bodge is the significant horizontal run (or sag). And the problem with it passing the spillage test, is that you are not necessarily testing on a freezing cold but still day

 

[SimonH2]

I come across liners in lofts quite often. Last time I spoke to gas Safe, the advice was that if it passed the smoke and spillage tests, it was ok to leave. It is amazing that guys are fitting NEW fires without inspecting the loft.

As I read that, what you seem to be saying is that if it's already in and working fine, then it's acceptable to leave it - but far from ideal ? But not acceptable for a new/replacement appliance installation ? Sounds just like the boiler flue in the flat which is 'only just' within the rules applicable when it was installed, and completely out of the question when I need to replace it (with a condensing model).

The worrying aspect of this flue liner bodge is the significant horizontal run (or sag). And the problem with it passing the spillage test, is that you are not necessarily testing on a freezing cold but still day

I was quite surprised how much draw there was up the flue without the fire on - the smoke went up very quickly, and that was with a cold house. In stark contrast to memories as a child of a smoke filled living room (or whole house) when lighting a coal fire and trying to get the chimney working Presumably horizontal runs reduce the effectiveness (though in this case it's small compared to the overall height of 2 1/2 floors worth), and the sag is just begging to collect dirt and condensation ?

 

[ollski]

You wouldn't leave the flues, there is no proper transition fitting to connect flexi flue pipe either to a ridge tile or flue block and no support so how is the weight of the flue supported?, is it that meltable closure plate tape wrapped around the hot single pipe flue?. At least 5 seperate 'At risk' situations from ....god knows what its like up close.

 

[SimonH2]

You wouldn't leave the flues, there is no proper transition fitting to connect flexi flue pipe either to a ridge tile or flue block and no support so how is the weight of the flue supported?, is it that meltable closure plate tape wrapped around the hot single pipe flue?

Very probably the tape is all that's supporting it - unless they threw some self tapping screws in. Apart from everything you've listed, I'd also be concerned about (in the other photos above the flats) of having a potentially hot flue taped to the timber frame

 

[expertgasman]

I come across liners in lofts quite often. Last time I spoke to gas Safe, the advice was that if it passed the smoke and spillage tests, it was ok to leave. It is amazing that guys are fitting NEW fires without inspecting the loft.

As I read that, what you seem to be saying is that if it's already in and working fine, then it's acceptable to leave it - but far from ideal ? But not acceptable for a new/replacement appliance installation ? Sounds just like the boiler flue in the flat which is 'only just' within the rules applicable when it was installed, and completely

out of the question when I need to replace it (with a condensing model).

I was pointing out that if you come across a previously installed installation, you don't necesserily have to disconnect. Your installation is awful, and I would talk the client into rectification.

It has NEVER been acceptable to use flue liner outside of a flue. The operative word being "liner".

I recently went to a fire service, where only a year ago, a fire had been installed leaving the old back boiler flue liner in place. I explained the regs to the client, who was upset, so I phoned GasSafe and explained the scenario. As expected, the advice was the same, if its okay, mark up as NCS, assuming the passing of tests.

If I have a marginal situation, I EMAIL GS, and get a written response, which is then filed with the job.

I don't like the attitude of "cut it off to CYA", we are supposed to be profesionals, and to exercise our expertise and judgement. Imagine how you would feel if a mechanic was to disable your car, because, for example, "in his opinion" LPG is dangerous in a motor vehicle.

 

[doitall]

Interesting comments expertgasman.

exercise our expertise and judgement

Wide open to interpretation, and in my opinion, the flues in the pics are ID and riddor.

There's is so much wrong no rgi in their right mind would leave it working.

I sleep well at night knowing the client is safe, after I left the building, right or wrong it's my opinion.

Like £orgi before, gassafe leave too many grey areas for the RGI to take the rap if they get it wrong, so you play on the safe side that keeps you out of jail.

 

[SimonH2]

Sits back, grabs popcorn

I was pointing out that if you come across a previously installed installation, you don't necesserily have to disconnect. Your installation is awful, and I would talk the client into rectification.

It has NEVER been acceptable to use flue liner outside of a flue. The operative word being "liner".

I recently went to a fire service, where only a year ago, a fire had been installed leaving the old back boiler flue liner in place. I explained the regs to the client, who was upset, so I phoned GasSafe and explained the scenario. As expected, the advice was the same, if its okay, mark up as NCS, assuming the passing of tests.

If I have a marginal situation, I EMAIL GS, and get a written response, which is then filed with the job.

I don't like the attitude of "cut it off to CYA", we are supposed to be profesionals, and to exercise our expertise and judgement. Imagine how you would feel if a mechanic was to disable your car, because, for example, "in his opinion" LPG is dangerous in a motor vehicle.

That does sound to me like a commonsense attitude.
As for the car analogy, the whole car hasn't been disabled, only the gas turned off at the tanks. If it so dangerous that there's a risk of conflagration or death by CO poisoning before I get home then I'd agree that it should be turned off.

Interesting comments expertgasman.

exercise our expertise and judgement

...
Like £orgi before, gassafe leave too many grey areas for the RGI to take the rap if they get it wrong, so you play on the safe side that keeps you out of jail.

And there's the rub. Far too much these days (not just in the gas field) - and it's got so bad that the HSE ended up putting out press releases effectively saying "stop blaming us when it's people unable/unwilling to make a risk assessment that are cancelling events/stopping <whatever>".
A great many small airfields have mandated the wearing of high vis vests when airside. I'm convinced it's not because they've done a risk assessment and worked out that it would enhance safety, but because they see others mandating hi vis and it must be a good thing. I'm not aware of a single incident on a small airfield where someone has been killed or injured and lack of a hi vis has been a factor - in fact one of the aviation mags has had vests done with "I'm wearing this to cover someone else's a**e !" on the back

Conversely, some years ago a friend told me of a local gas fitter that fell foul of "the letter of the law" after having assessed the risk. I forget the details, but for some reason he'd identified a stop cock that fitted conveniently with a hob when none of the "approved" ones did. He'd assessed the construction and materials and determined that it was actually suitable even if the manufacturer hadn't stamped some magic number on the side.
Long story short, after having used them with no problem for some time, one turned out to be faulty and leaked. The customer then called "the authorities" (I'm guessing the "smell gas ?" number in the phone book) rather than him. He was taken to court and found guilty on the basis that "the valve leaked, therefore it clearly wasn't suitable". IMO a completely bogus argument as that implies that an approved component can never leak or wear or suffer from being made last thing on a Friday afternoon - something that clearly isn't true or the leaking valve on the gas hob in the flat a couple of years ago didn't happen

When you hear of some of the idiotic prosecutions happening in all areas, I can well understand an RGI erring on the cautious side.

 

[doitall]

A few months back an hotel got done a few thousand quid, for not training 2 of their ground workers how to cut a branch off a tree after:

Groundsman No1 puts ladder against branch.

Groundsman No 2 rushes up ladder and lops of the branch, "treeside"

Ladder falls down, broken leg.

In his defense groundsman No2 said he was right handed, and could possible cut the branch on the other side of the ladder.

No prizes for who has the most brains, Groundsman No2 or Tree.

The point is, if you gonna get done, because one of the employee's is as thick as two short planks, by the same token you need to make damn sure your back is covered.

 

[SimonH2]

Groundsman No1 puts ladder against branch.

Groundsman No 2 rushes up ladder and lops of the branch, "treeside"

Ladder falls down, broken leg.

In his defense groundsman No2 said he was right handed, and could possible cut the branch on the other side of the ladder.

No prizes for who has the most brains, Groundsman No2 or Tree.

I think people are starting to realise the problem is the courts are failing to throw out claims for stupidity. We've gone far, far to far down the road where people can be completely stupid (or even deliberately put themselves at risk) and then 'blame' someone else.

Is "being too stupid to do a job safely" grounds for fair dismissal ?

 

[SimonH2]

Well, after some delay the flue is sorted - picture attached and hopefully no-one is going to say it too is a complete bodge
First there was a significant delay waiting for parts. A suspiciously long delay of several weeks for something I'd have thought would be off the shelf somewhere.
Then the week before last, the people went to do the job - but couldn't get in. Somewhere between the estate agent booking the work, and the guys turning up, the "pick the keys up from <agency>" instruction didn't get through.
Finally last Friday they did it.

New Flue

• SimonH2
• 2 Mar 2011
• 1

New rigid twinwall flue in place.

 

[simond]

and had the garage sockets made up into a ring main. For a few yards of cable they couldn't be bothered bringing the other end back to the fuse board

New builds commonly don't have ring mains because IEE 17th Edition applies derating factors for cabling in well insulated properties.

If you radial goes through insulated areas or even partitions a derating factor will be applied that renders 2.5mm unsuitable for carrying 32A in a ring configuration. Therefore lower rated MCBs or RCBOs are commonly provided, and 4mm radials or 2.5mm radials put in instead of ring mains.

In these circumstances, if the ring has been completed and the circuit protection upped to 32A, you have created an electrical fire risk.

 

[SimonH2]

and had the garage sockets made up into a ring main. For a few yards of cable they couldn't be bothered bringing the other end back to the fuse board

New builds commonly don't have ring mains because IEE 17th Edition applies derating factors for cabling in well insulated properties.

If you radial goes through insulated areas or even partitions a derating factor will be applied that renders 2.5mm unsuitable for carrying 32A in a ring configuration. Therefore lower rated MCBs or RCBOs are commonly provided, and 4mm radials or 2.5mm radials put in instead of ring mains.

In these circumstances, if the ring has been completed and the circuit protection upped to 32A, you have created an electrical fire risk.

The original installation has a ring main for the sockets, and the cables go in pretty much the same places. Also, applying some logic retrospectively (given what you've just said), given the length of the ring then it would be hard to envision a current split between the two legs that would take any cable over 20A.

 

[Agile]

Us gas blokes do like to talk about how we should/might/would deal with problems.

This question is SOLELY related to the mortar joints in the flue.

In my own judgement they are "not all that bad".

If I encountered something like that then IF it passed the relevant tests then I would be inclined to class it as NCS and leave it in service.

BUT we are only allowed to do that IF its the only NCS aspect about the installation. Two NCS equals an At Risk!

However, my question to other RGIs is just how would YOU rate the mortar joints?

Tony