Newly installed combi boiler causing pipe leaks

[JohnD]

I don't work in the heating business but I am trying to think how I would design my contract and pricing policy if I did.

option 1:
I take the risk that some of my installations will leak, although most don't. The ones that do will cost on average £2,000 to put right. One in 50 jobs will leak. I therefore increase my quoted price to every customer by £40. I go out of business because no-one accepts my quotes, since they are £40 higher than identical businesses offering an identical quality of service, except those customers who secretly know they have defective piping and want it fixed at my expense.

option 2
I tell my customers that there is a risk that their pipes might leak, and warn them that they will be liable to the extra cost if this happens, and it will typically cost them £2000. My turnover drops by 50% because most other installers keep quiet about the risk.

there may be other options.

 

[Norcon]

What I do not know is whether, it being a lower pressure system, it represented a major problem

Vented systems have the distinct disadvantage over sealed systems because they increase the interaction of air and system water.

When you combine this with a vented system that is leaking (constantly diluting system inhibitor (if any present) some where under a floor and has went on undetected for years then it will have a severe detrimental effect on the system in the form of corrosion and scaled up pipes and WILL represent a major problem.
I would estimate that the internal bore of your pipes will be reduced by about 20% due to corrosion and scale build up.

I changed my system over to sealed some years ago.
Initally the pressure didn't hold and knowing it was an old house I thought the leak could be under the floor and the water would dissappear into rubble below the screed.
It stabilized afted a few weeks luckily.
That said I wouldn't have found it a big problem to do a re-pipe.

I think its unfortuanate that you have chosen to take a pop at your installer.
He is not responsible for your defective pipe work.

 

[expertgasman]

Expertgasman,

so far the only whinging I have seen has been on the part of engineers on here because their practices are being questioned. I have been primarily asking questions about what practices should be expected to occur when a combi is installed.

You are trying to offload your repsonsinbility onto someone else

So from your post, can I infer that if "carried out the paperwork properly" was not the case then I do have a leg to stand on?

It would have stopped any thoughts of a successful suing on your part. It keeps everything tidy, and, yes, it is possible that if you had the right Judge, you could win a case. You would, though, have to lie and say that you weren't aware of a risk


If someone had communicated the risks to me in the manner you state you operate, then I would be far more prepared to accept my current situation

But you WERE aware, you're an engineer, and the only question is wether you could pull the wool over the Judges eyes. Some Judge would be predisposed to siding with a consumer rather than a business, and it would depend on how the 2 parties conducted themselves in a small claims court. Paper work clarifies everything, the lack of it doesn't make an installer a cowboy.

Having said all that, if you were to accept your responsibility, I wouldn't necessarily agree that over £2k is a fair price for the replacement pipework. There are guys fitting a complete system for not much more than that. Not that I would necessarily recommend them!

 

[TelBee]

Norcon, thanks for the info.

I (and the company involved) have assumed to data that it is due to leaking pipes, although at present (unlike previously) there is no sign of a water leak.

I independently tested the EV without any signs of a water leak on the external outlet pipe.

For completeness, is there any other possible cause of pressure loss?

As I keep stating, I have not taken a pop at the installer in any of my posts, I have posted a number of questions about what procedures should have been followed for the installation.

Virtually all replies have come from other installers, who are naturally siding with the view of the installer.

However, independent advice has told me that there are questions over how the installation took place.

 

[TelBee]

Expertgasman,

You are trying to offload your repsonsinbility onto someone else

expertgasman, I am a bit confused by that quote.

What responsibility do I have exactly? If I had installed the system, and not performed the tests correctly, fair enough, that is my responsibility. The pipes were not fit for the combi, end of story.

Instead I paid a third party to perform the installation, and by default transferred the responsibility to them for installing a working system.

They have already told me they performed a pressure test, which did not stop them from installing the system, which subsequently failed.

So where does my responsibility lie in this?

If this went to court I would argue the above, how do you think a judge might argue against it?

 

[electronicsuk]

I (and the company involved) have assumed to data that it is due to leaking pipes, although at present (unlike previously) there is no sign of a water leak.

I independently tested the EV without any signs of a water leak on the external outlet pipe.

For completeness, is there any other possible cause of pressure loss?

It's quite easy for you to test whether the leak is in the pipework or the boiler. Simply isolate the boiler from the heating circuit (there's usually valves present as part of the plumbing jig), take a note of the system pressure, leave it for an appropriate period of time and then return to check the pressure on the gauge. If it's dropped, the problem is in the boiler. If it drops on opening the valves and linking the boiler back into the heating circuit, the problem is in the pipework.

Obviously, you shouldn't try and run the heating while these valves are closed.

 

[Norcon]

how do you think a judge might argue against it?

Pressure tests on NEW installations can be done to the book and signed off and witnessed by qualified engineers.
Its well recognised in industry that when these NEW systems are commissioned and operational, FAILURES do occur and leaks manifest them selves leaving the engineers and fitters scratching their heads.
When corroded pipe is part of the system and has passed a pressure test then the possibility of a failure when the system is commissioned rises drammatically.

So pressure testing under what ever the regulations stipulate for the particular system is not a definitive conclusion or gurantee that the pipework system will not fail when commissioned and operational under working loads.
I would hope this would be explained to the judge by a suitable independant qualified engineer leading to a total vindication of the installer for any blame relating to the heating system not working.

 

[heatingman]

transferred the responsibility to them for installing a working system.

The boiler has been installed and works correctly, they have not installed your system and as their T&C state its not their responsibillity.

and you where aware this problem might occur

 

[TelBee]

My argument against that is the company specified the boiler type (combi) and boiler make and model, that was not my decision. They therefore have some responsibility for ensuring that it works with the existing pipes (i.e. the complete system). They state they performed a pressure test, which nevertheless did not prevent the system from failing.

And as I keep stating, the pipes burst immediately upon first operation, so the chance of long term deterioration of the pipes is out of the equation.

Your argument about my awareness of risk is completely irrelevant. If I buy a car I am aware I might die in it, but this will not excuse a car manufacturer, who causes my death by selling me a car with a known safety defect.

 

[electronicsuk]

Your argument about my awareness of risk is completely irrelevant. If I buy a car I am aware I might die in it, but this will not excuse a car manufacturer, who causes my death by selling me a car with a known safety defect.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Your situation is more akin to buying a car in the knowledge that the radiator was rusting through, then complaining when it springs a leak. It would be wrong of the person selling the car not to make you aware of this, but it would be equally dishonest of you to pretend that you weren't aware of the risks, when in fact you were.

 

[JohnD]

I would say it was more like owning a car with a rusty radiator and a leaky radiator cap, and buying a new radiator cap.

the vendor did not supply or install the part with the inherent defect, you already owned it.

The part was already defective, and was bound to start leaking sooner or later.

 

[TelBee]

Your argument about my awareness of risk is completely irrelevant. If I buy a car I am aware I might die in it, but this will not excuse a car manufacturer, who causes my death by selling me a car with a known safety defect.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Your situation is more akin to buying a car in the knowledge that the radiator was rusting through, then complaining when it springs a leak. It would be wrong of the person selling the car not to make you aware of this, but it would be equally dishonest of you to pretend that you weren't aware of the risks, when in fact you were.

I think your example is also not analogous; I was certainly NOT aware of any leaking pipes prior to the installation.

I transferred responsibility to the company for installing a boiler (the type of which they specified) to operate with the existing pipes. They did not make me aware that it would not work, and THEY performed the pressure test. I admit I was aware that IN GENERAL there was an increased risk of it not working, but not specifically with my pipes.

I am getting a concensus view from all installers that the risk lies completely with the customer, and independent advice backs me up that this is not the case in the view of trading standards.

 

[electronicsuk]

Your argument about my awareness of risk is completely irrelevant. If I buy a car I am aware I might die in it, but this will not excuse a car manufacturer, who causes my death by selling me a car with a known safety defect.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Your situation is more akin to buying a car in the knowledge that the radiator was rusting through, then complaining when it springs a leak. It would be wrong of the person selling the car not to make you aware of this, but it would be equally dishonest of you to pretend that you weren't aware of the risks, when in fact you were.

I think your example is also not analogous; I was certainly NOT aware of any leaking pipes prior to the installation.

But you were aware of the potential for them to leak. This is, after all, the topic of this entire discussion. I think it's certainly a better analogy than the one you presented, which was not in any way specific.

I transferred responsibility to the company for installing a boiler (the type of which they specified) to operate with the existing pipes. They did not make me aware that it would not work, and THEY performed the pressure test. I admit I was aware that IN GENERAL there was an increased risk of it not working, but not specifically with my pipes.

That's what you keep saying, but I just don't see how that is the case, and I really can't understand why you think that the installer should be responsible for the entire system simply because he fitted a new boiler to it.

In the electrical a good electrician will, for example, test all circuits on an electrical installation before changing the consumer unit. However, not every problem can be detected through testing. After moving from an old Wylex Standard to a modern consumer unit with RCDs and RCBOs, would you expect an electrician to return and fault find free of charge if one of your appliances is causing nuisance tripping?

The point I'm trying to make here is that testing can only get you so far. I maintain that after carrying out a pressure test, you would have been in exactly the same predicament regardless of what type of boiler you had fitted.

I am getting a concensus view from all installers that the risk lies completely with the customer, and independent advice backs me up that this is not the case in the view of trading standards.

It's entirely your choice how you proceed, but you came here from advice, and you've received it. How well you get on in court will depend exactly what expert testimony the defendant can bring to the table. I'd be interested to hear how you get on, in any case.

 

[silverback18]

Its irrelevant when and if the pressure testing was done.

The system would have leaked and been un-usable.

You have clearly stated you knew the risks involved.

Whatever way you try to spin it, the cost is your responsibillity.

Sorry heatingman, Consumer Direct and the Institute of Heating and Plumbing Engineers do not agree with your view. And it is quite possible that only their opinion ultimately will really matter.

As you say it is the OPINION of the CIPHE and Consumer Direct, why would their opinion matter over heatingman, their opinion will not be relevent in court, as their opinion is no more valid than mine, heatingman or any other contributor on here, as they were not involved with the installation

 

[expertgasman]

This is all getting a bit circular. I've looked at one of the early posts:

) The Institute of Plumbing & Heating have advised that the pressure test should have been performed over a duration of at least 2 hours in order to allow weak pipes to be idenenttified. After this point the installer should have made us aware of the existence of weak pipes and the need for a decision to a) replace pipes or b) use an alternative (lower pressure) boiler.

This is clearly nonsense. As sais and this is the most important element, a pressure test will only find a leak NOT a "weak" pipe. Therefore, the following:

and the need for a decision to a) replace pipes or b) use an alternative (lower pressure) boiler.[/i][/i]

is clearly erroneous, as the only outcome of a pressure test is LEAKING or NOT LEAKING. If it is leaking, then the pipes have to be repaired first, if it is NOT LEAKING then one can only go on experience and visible signs of potential problems, which is what we all normally do.

Tel has either misunderstood and misquoting, or he's making it up. The only alternative is that the IoPH is not "fir for purpose", and I will resign immediately!. Or I would if I was a member.

Is there a member of the Institute that could say if this is a genuine IPH statem