Gas installer not gas safe

[Agile]

To post commission and register an installation is not an offence. the person doing so however is held responsible for the correctness of the installation.

And I would agree that such situations do indeed blight our industry.

I have to disagree with that statement as being the view of Gas Safe.

It is certainly correct that any engineer can ( and should ) commission any new boiler installation as it is considered as At Risk when its an uncommissioned appliance.

But it is totally illegal for anyone who did not install the appliance to register it with Gas Safe ( and thus Building Control ). To legally register it he would need to remove the boiler from the wall and refit it and the flue.

Anyone can try to get Building Control to inspect controlled work and issue a Certificate. There does not seem to be any uniformity between different LAs on how they deal with this situation. I was invited to an interesting presentation by a senior officer from Ealing on this topic but it was mostly relating to electrical work and he had actually trained and registered as an electrician so he could do his own house rewire and inspect electrical work for the borough.

Tony

 

[Agile]

I am one of the few engineers who will consider reinstalling an illegal appliance.

But my charge for that is so high that it negates the saving from using an unregistered installer.

So I am rarely called to do that when they hear the price.

A common trick for landlords ( and unregistered installers ) is to call an RGI and ask him to issue a Gas Safety Certificate.

Most RGIs will do that because they are hungry for work! I, and perhaps a few others, would always refuse although if I am asked to commission the appliance I might then issue a Certificate.

Tony

 

[simond]

If you see it, report it.

 

[Weedrip]

Then Tony you need to talk to Gas Safe.

A recent example 8 weeks ago [ish] I was asked to certify a boiler by a domestic customer so that they could get BG to register an install that was about a year old. For the record I neither know or care why the BG would do such a thing but the customer claimed that that is what they had been told. I understand they were hoping to complete a sale within a week or so. Figuring I was being taken for a sucker I checked with Gas Safe. They confirmed my concern that it is the person who commissions the appliance that must then register it and that if I were to commission it in this instance I would indeed be required to register it and I would then be also accepting liability for the install. BG could not register it as I have no connection with BG in any shape or form.
The above is not my interpretation or misguided opinion, but the actual statement by the Tec-office at Gas Safe.

I then returned the customer call and explained that they need to seek advice from Gas Safe as to the correctness of the proposal by BG as I believed they were mistaken in their offer to register it.
I also informed them that as an un-commissioned / un-registered appliance they should switch it off and not use it for their own safety until the situation it was rectified.
That was my duty of care fulfilled.

I do accept there is a moral dilemma in the situation that knowing an install is not correct I feel no compunction to accept I have a duty to undertake such work.
In this instance they did not comeback to me on the subject so I was relieved of the above dilemma when I would have told them thanks offer of their work , but no thanks.

 

[Agile]

Well all I can say is that I have had that discussion with GS people and they were adamant that I could ( and should to ensure a safe appliance! ) commission a boiler but could in no way register it without reinstalling it.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Then Tony you need to talk to Gas Safe.

A recent example 8 weeks ago [ish] I was asked to certify a boiler by a domestic customer so that they could get BG to register an install that was about a year old. For the record I neither know or care why the BG would do such a thing but the customer claimed that that is what they had been told. I understand they were hoping to complete a sale within a week or so. Figuring I was being taken for a sucker I checked with Gas Safe. They confirmed my concern that it is the person who commissions the appliance that must then register it and that if I were to commission it in this instance I would indeed be required to register it and I would then be also accepting liability for the install. BG could not register it as I have no connection with BG in any shape or form.
The above is not my interpretation or misguided opinion, but the actual statement by the Tec-office at Gas Safe.

I then returned the customer call and explained that they need to seek advice from Gas Safe as to the correctness of the proposal by BG as I believed they were mistaken in their offer to register it.
I also informed them that as an un-commissioned / un-registered appliance they should switch it off and not use it for their own safety until the situation it was rectified.
That was my duty of care fulfilled.

I do accept there is a moral dilemma in the situation that knowing an install is not correct I feel no compunction to accept I have a duty to undertake such work.
In this instance they did not comeback to me on the subject so I was relieved of the above dilemma when I would have told them thanks offer of their work , but no thanks.

And you've never been given conflicting advice from gas safe?

 

[Weedrip]

Lol..... I have indeed been given conflicting advice, I have also been given incorrect advice and when challenged they have had to back track but that's another story.

Lets put our brains in gear here for a moment. what other avenues do you know of for an unregistered installation to get registered once its been found to not to have been in the first place?
For it to be compliant it will need to be registered even after the event. even applying for a retrospective building conditions approval or via a section 36 notice they will require a person certified to check it for safety and correct installation, given the general constraints on building depts. do you think they would go to the trouble of an enforcement route when it can be commissioned and then registered to 'regularise' it.

The following is taken from the Governments own planning portal site. I have highlighted underlined in bold the expected general response.

Given the response from GS in my example it would be in accord with the expected response for the local BC dept. in that 'regularising' the situation is the safe thing to do but only the person 'post commissioning' it can make the statement that the installation, having inspected it is in accord with the building control requirements.

Failure to comply with the Building Regulations

If you do not follow the building control procedures set out for handling your building work or you carry out building work which does not comply with the requirements contained in the Building Regulations you will have contravened the Regulations.

Prosecution and enforcement notices

A local authority has a general duty to enforce the Building Regulations in its area and will seek to do so by informal means wherever possible. If informal enforcement does not achieve compliance with the Regulations the local authority has two formal enforcement powers which it may use in appropriate cases.

First, if a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority may prosecute them in the Magistrates' Court where an unlimited fine may be imposed (sections 35 and 35A of the Building Act 1984). Prosecution is possible up to two years after the completion of the offending work. This action will usually be taken against the person carrying out the work (builder, installer or main contractor).

Alternatively, or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the building owner requiring alteration or removal of work which contravenes the regulations (section 36 of the 1984 Act). If the owner does not comply with the notice the local authority has the power to undertake the work itself and recover the costs of doing so from the owner.

A section 36 enforcement notice cannot be served on you after the expiration of 12 months from the date of completion of the building work. A local authority also cannot take enforcement action under section 36 if the work which you have carried out is in accordance with your full plans application which the authority approved or failed to reject.


Tony
Why would you consider that removing a boiler and re-fixing it would in any way make it more safe? when you service or do a landlords cert you are in effect commissioning an appliance. to be clear you are [or should] be checking all parameters required to ensure the safe operation and set up as per the manufacturers requirements.
You are not required to take it off the wall! the flue should also be inspect-able in any event, it does not in itself require disassembly! If any of the tested inspected parameters are not as expected then of course remedial work / action would be required.

but you crack on and do as you think fit...

 

[Terrywookfit]

What about new build ? Common for someone to first fix gas, then someone else second fix boiler !!! Just saying.

Same as commercial. Pipefitters install as per drawing. Someone then tests and commissions.

 

[FiremanT]

I am sure that I have read in the rag more than once that GS approve of an RGI retrospectively commissioning and registering an appliance that he has come across, on the grounds that it is better (and less potentially dangerous) than an uncommissioned appliance. The RGI in this case would take responsibility for the installation. What is definitely not allowed is a pre-arrangement whereby the RGI agrees that an unregistered installer will fit and he will commission and register, thereby wantonly circumventing the rules.

 

[oph]

OP WHY is a building firm fitting the boiler to start with?

You wouldnt get a plumbing and heating company to do your loft conversion or extension..............

 

[oph]

LABC notification means fek all in principle.

Its not policed and Ive had customers move into their new places and Ive seen an A rated appliance with either a bare copper cylinder, no full programmer, no rom stat. Pointless paper exercise..........

 

[Dan Robinson]

Edit.

 

[Weedrip]

Sadly I am not aware of any laws that make dubious morals an offence. the persons committing the offence are the contractor and the person undertaking the work in an unregistered capacity, as they would in such an example at the very least commit an offence under the gas installation and use regulations. The registered guy could just say he had been contracted to commission the boiler and as such register it. Both of which could be work he could be considered as a competent person to preform as defined in the regulations.

What is definitely not allowed is a pre-arrangement whereby the RGI agrees that an unregistered installer will fit and he will commission and register, thereby wantonly circumventing the rules.

Would that be on moral or (regulatory / legal) grounds?

 

[Dan Robinson]

LABC notification means fek all in principle.

Tell that to my brother who's £1.2 million pound house purchase might be falling through at the last minute because the vendors can't produce any documents for the work that's been done on the house.

 

[Servotech]

The RGI upon signing off takes full responsibility for the whole gas installation in the property right up until the next person who works on that installation (who then takes over the responsibility). Gas safe make the rules that we have to adhere too and these rules are subject to constant change.