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

[spareshunter]

1)

There's a large space in the attic, the gas fire would only have been used intermittently if it had been used, and the attic is well vented - there's a continuous soffit vent along both sides (vary large total vent area).

You are actually advocating that it would be alright to run the gas fire with the flue in that condition. Dangerous situation.

Quote:
2)

There's aren't any significant gaps in the ceiling, so any POCs would have to permeate through the plasterboard to get into the living space.

Are your gaps exempt from the law of physics however small and the loft hatch can be misaligned, gaps to neighbouring properties if applicable, the list goes on

3) You do I must admit, have a rudimentary grasp of carbon monoxide poising and your comments regarding the length of the exposure varies with time is again correct again.

"OH MY GOD WE'RE GONNA DIE WITHIN SECONDS

You forget the other part of the equation the the level could be of..... co @ %co1.28 = 12800 parts per million = effects on adults = immediate symptoms of headaches, dizziness, nausea, unconsciousness & death with 1 - 3 minutes. So 60 seconds ???, of course you will be unconscious before then. I for one would not like to be exposed to any %co as permanent brain damage is also a factor to be built in.

FACT.

What I did suggest was that, all things considered, the level of risk while the appliance was in that state would not have been the "turn on appliance, everyone dead in minutes" level. Several mitigating factors would have reduced the risk level considerably from that - you may not like the application of reasoning,

No level of POC from an open flue appliance entering a room or space is acceptable and your application of reasoning is nil, you are correct I do not like it
and neither would Gas Safe or the Health & Safety.

If you would like to write to Gas Safe of your hypothesis I am sure they would be very interested especially as you are a landlord.

 

[spareshunter]

Popcorn ready are you sitting comfortably.

As you are so certain, you'll have no problem showing everyone where the law states that "When an ID situation has been identified the appliance must be CAPPED off and disabled from further use until the situation is rectified and passed as safe to use by a RGI Registered Gas Installer."

I suggest you obtain a copy of "The Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure" GIUSP, Then read: Section 6.3 In its entirety and let me know what you think. This should have been carried out by your registered gas installer at the time of the visit as you say "a gas safety check" and the flue was in operation at the time of discovery. You will also notice within, there are no ifs, buts, should, could, maybe, etc., and is quite clear on that.

If he has just turned off the appliance and left the property without rectifying the flue problem in question 100%, then he is in breach of that notice. He must advise you of the situation and follow the procedure as in "The Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure" section 6.3.

Or are you going to rewrite that as well.

Of course if you feel this document does not apply to yourself, now that you are aware of it, I suggest you contact your local Gas Safe Inspector and inform him of your views on the matter.

 

[Steelmasons]

I wouldn't entertain this idiot spareshunter , he reminds me of that other idiot bengasser what with his style of postings and pompous attitude.

 

[spareshunter]

You are probably right steel better things to do which is why I don't usually cross the line, if you know what I mean.

Because of his attitude I will persevere a little longer the bloke is a complete idiot of the first order that's for sure however others reading his posts might think its OK to follow his advise; this hopefully is not going to happen.

 

[SimonH2]

I wouldn't entertain this idiot spareshunter , he reminds me of that other idiot bengasser what with his style of postings and pompous attitude.

I was coming to that conclusion.

Since he has no grasp of the concept of reading the actual statements people make, but is happy to make completely false accusations both of personal integrity and honesty, yet seems unwilling to apologise for such actions.

You are actually advocating that it would be alright to run the gas fire with the flue in that condition. Dangerous situation.

Err, if you go back, you'll find that I have NEVER advocated that. You are an illiterate idiot if you think I did.

Are your gaps exempt from the law of physics however small and the loft hatch can be misaligned, gaps to neighbouring properties if applicable, the list goes on

No, are you suggesting I said they aren't ?

You do I must admit, have a rudimentary grasp of carbon monoxide poising ...

I guess that's the nearest I'm likely to see from you in backtracking your ridiculous accusations.

I for one would not like to be exposed to any %co as permanent brain damage is also a factor to be built in.

Then you have a real problem and had better stop breathing in all that CO that's in the atmosphere then.

No level of POC from an open flue appliance entering a room or space is acceptable

and I didn't suggest otherwise. But that does lead on to an interesting question - do you automatically ID every single gas hob, gas oven, flueless room heater, etc, etc. You see, there is a fundamental issue tying up your statement with the real fact that there are allowed gas appliances which do vent all their POCs into the room. The chemistry is no different between an open flame in the gas fire, and an open flame on the hob - it's the same gas going in, the same air going in, and the same open flame (at least with the applaince in question).

and your application of reasoning is nil, you are correct I do not like it

You don't like being shown up for being narrow minded with no ability to apply the concept of managing risk.
You see, the only logical conclusion to your statements is that no gas combustion should be allowed - but even that would not reduce CO exposure to nil since there are natural sources of the gas (you may be somewhat surprised if you go away and read up on the subject a little).

Have a gas boiler - there's a small but non zero chance that the POCs from the flue can enter the building. You only need to watch the plume of water vapour from a "steamer" to see just how the exhaust can be "tossed around" by the effects of wind and eddy current around the house. Even with a roof terminal, there is a non-zero risk of POCs being either carried down the roof and into a window, or being blown back down the chimney, under certain wind conditions.
See, all gas combustion has a risk - and not zero risk. Managing that risk means being prepared to consider the level and appropriate (and proportionate) measures to mitigate those risks. Now, once again I am not advocating anything but good practice - I am merely pointing out that in this case the risk was significantly lower than it could have been had the same thing happened in another property and/or with a different tenant.

But based on your previous responses, I don't expect you to comprehend any of that.

I suggest you obtain a copy of "The Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure" GIUSP, Then read: Section 6.3 In its entirety and let me know what you think.

I've read it, and as I pointed out, it doesn't support your false statement - the false statement I picked you up on, which you took so much exception to. Also, even if it were law (which it isn't, and it specifically says so, and it specifically says that it is not the only way of complying with the law), you seem pretty ignorant of it's contents yourself if you think the only allowed action is to cap off the supply pipe.



Now, do you actually have anything useful to add to the thread, or do you intend to continue with your unfounded accusations ? So far you have accused me of :

• breaking the law
• considering having a faulty appliance as acceptable
• knowing nothing whatsoever about POCs and CO
• knowing nothing about how a flue operates
• believing that the laws of physics don't apply in my properties
• not caring about the health of my tenants and putting other peoples' lives at risk

I don't suppose I'll get an apology for any of them. Seeing as you appear to think that being an RGI makes your word that of God and no-one may disagree with it regardless of how idiotic you act.

 

[SimonH2]

... might think its OK to follow his advise ...

What advice would that be ? I've given no advice. Made comments, yes; called you on being narrow minded and ignorant, yes; given advice, no.

I don't expect you actually read what I've written, I expect you skim it, decide what you want it to say and criticise me for what you want me to have written.

I also don't expect you to actually answer legitimate questions about your statements. You seem to be one of those who just ignores questions they don't like the answer to.

 

[Corgigrouch]

So who took that flue down and allowed the POCs to flow into the loft? In the original picture of the flue when it had first been fitted it appears that the bracket was screwed to the timber trusses.... The only way that the flue could fall in the position shown in the newer set of photos is that the screws had been removed deliberately

 

[Steelmasons]

- do you automatically ID every single gas hob, gas oven, flueless room heater, etc, etc. You see, there is a fundamental issue tying up your statement with the real fact that there are allowed gas appliances which do vent all their POCs into the room. The chemistry is no different between an open flame in the gas fire, and an open flame on the hob - it's the same gas going in, the same air going in, and the same open flame (at least with the applaince in question).

Usage for some of the above mentioned appliances differ somewhat to the appliance in question , combustion ventilation for flueless appliances also differ to that of an open flued appliance (chimney) too.

 

[spareshunter]

 

[Steelmasons]

What Simonh2 fails to realise is that flueless appliances discharge their products of combustion into the room to which they are installed whereby ventilation/room volume has been calculated in order for safe operation , an open chimney/flue discharging products of combustion into the room it is installed in or anywhere else for that matter (apart from its dedicated terminal) could be dangerous and is classified as ID no ifs no buts.

......and yes it does look like the flue has deliberately been tampered with , had it not been then we wouldn't have been subjected to the OP's drivel.

 

[spareshunter]

steel, don't go there we will have to talk about catalytic converters n stuff. The man thinks all gas appliances are the same for Christ's sake. I can say that because I think I have been appointed gods spokesman or something like that because I am RGI.

I must admit being promoted from a common stone thrower to something to do with god was quite elating then looking back I realised I was digging holes all along, can't get lower than that, can you Isn't life topsy turvy.

 

[SimonH2]

Yet more unsubstantiated abuse - yet a complete failure to answer the questions asked. Sorry, but when you make a false statement, and get picked up on it - you cannot expect to magic away your mistake by piling on more and more personal attacks.

Yes I am aware of the differences, but you two seem happy to ignore the questions :

1) Having made the assertion that "I for one would not like to be exposed to any %co as permanent brain damage is also a factor to be built in." How do you square that with the simple facts that there are unflued appliances which unless you magically change the chemistry of burning gas in a nice blue flame will have generally similar POCs to the open flame gas fire in question. Not to mention the background natural CO, and that produced within the body. And then there's smokers - but don't lets go there.

2) I've also been called "such an arrogant Land lord as yourself" on the false assumption that I have either condoned continued operation of the appliance, or was in any way justifying not disconnecting the gas supply. The qualified person doing the checks turned it off (didn't actually ask, just told me he was doing it as he knows I'd not quibble and asking is a bit superfluous). So personal insults there.

3) And of course, I asked for anything to back up a statement which I pointed out was false. So far I've seen nothing, just more and more personal insults to try and divert attention away from it.

The only way that the flue could fall in the position shown in the newer set of photos is that the screws had been removed deliberately

As for why the flue came down, I have my own theory about that. I haven't been up there yet*, but I strongly suspect I'll find no screw holes in the timber
* I might not until a third party has a look, so I can't be accused of having tampered with the evidence.
Not slow to make accusations are you guys ? Did you stop to consider that it might not have been fitted correctly in the first place, before you accused me or my tenant of foul play ? At least one person here - oh look it was spareshunter back on page 3 - ststed that it wasn't properly fixed, now it's back back to "someone must have unscrewed it".

Inadequate fixings, always needs a minimum of two or more fixings for flue pipework (fulcrum come to mind). Difficult to see fittings are correct from photo though. The fittings and pipework should have the makers stickers on and usually not interchangeable with other makes.

If its an approved twin wall throughout, the tape is not needed unless the manufactures state in their instructions however some put this on and rely on it to hold the pipework together as it seems in this case.

So guys, how did it get from "it wasn't done properly, it should be reported" to "it was clearly OK and someone must have vandalised" ?

What Simonh2 fails to realise is that flueless appliances discharge their products of combustion into the room to which they are installed

Err, yes I think you'll see that I have raised that point - you know, where it was stated (in effect) that "no level of POCs in a room is safe" and I queried how that ties with there being appliances that not flued. Instead of accepting that perhaps the original statement "wasn't well expressed", I'm now expected to believe that the chemistry of burning (principally methane) in air is different. Please explain how the molecules of methane and air know where the flame is located so they can behave differently ?

whereby ventilation/room volume has been calculated in order for safe operation

yes, and I know that too - though "calculated" is probably an overstatement as I expect that they are "calculated" in the same way that electrical circuits are "designed" - ie by reference to a few rules of thumb.

an open chimney/flue discharging products of combustion into the room it is installed in or anywhere else for that matter (apart from its dedicated terminal) could be dangerous and is classified as ID no ifs no buts.

And I'm still waiting for anyone to show where I suggested otherwise.
But, the open appliance also is installed in a space with ventilation requirements having been specified in order to provide the fresh air needed for efficient combustion.

......and yes it does look like the flue has deliberately been tampered with , had it not been then we wouldn't have been subjected to the OP's drivel.

Sorry, the only drivel has been the stream of false accusations from spareshunter.

 

[GuessMan]

SimonH2, how many front teeth do you have?

You come on here asking for advice indicating you do not know the answer. Then become an obnoxious no it all.

A person like you must a least have lost one tooth.

 

[SimonH2]

Sorry if being able to read think counts as being an obnoxious know it all.
It started off OK, but then an incorrect statement was made. All I did was point out that the statement was erroneous, then spareshunter "went postal". BTW - he's admitted that his original statement as written was not correct - but only in a roundabout way.

The only obnoxious know it all is the person who takes the attitude that "my qualification means I know it all" and then starts with personal abuse.

I'm still open to rational advice from people who are prepared to have an adult conversation. Some time this week I'll be going to see the people who did the work 3 years ago and see how that goes. What I do then depends to a certain extent on that.

 

[adamsheating]

The situation if not signed off and accepted as ID would be escalated to the local provider who would then have to use the rights of entry regs. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2535/regulation/5/made

This would be based on our decision whilst on site, obviously your decision to refuse disconnection.

Interesting though to consider fluing into lofts, it's more that the build up of POC would and could be overwhelming if the appliance was running for too long.

I think slagging is becoming way to prevelant on this site!