So what happened in Blackburn?

[JohnW2]

You are missing the point guys, even if they store hot water, with such a surge they will all likely be knackered.

No, I think it's you who is missing the point - by not reading the thread properly!

The comments about stored hot water are nothing to do with 'power surges', anything being knackered or anything to do with what happened in Blackburn. There were part of a discussion about the pros and cons (most people talked of the cons!) of combi boilers. It was pointed out that if you lose gas and/or electricity and/or water supplies (for any reason), you are immediately without any hot water, whereas with a conventional vented system, you would have stored hot water for a good while.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

they often reach 6,000 volts and 3,000 amps when they arrive at the equipment.

westie, don't you find that a rather odd statement? How is this hypothesised 'load' of 2Ω arrived at?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

6000V can make all sorts of loads become 2Ω ....

 

[JohnW2]

6000V can make all sorts of loads become 2Ω ....

I'm sure it can, and it can make them become all sorts of other (low) impedances, too - which is why I wondered how the 2Ω figure was 'arrived at'!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

I think the current and voltage quoted were typical values rather than suggesting 3000A at 6000V.

 

[SimonH2]

You are missing the point guys, even if they store hot water, with such a surge they will all likely be knackered.

Actually, if you read the messages, NO.
At home, and in my flat, the immersion heater would not have been switched on as it's only there for backup - even if it had been switched on, it would almost certainly have survived and/or blown the fuse/tripped the breaker. The boiler may well have been taken out, but the immersion heater would still be functioning and able to provide hot water. For the period between everything going bang and the electric supply getting turned back on, there's enough stored hot water to manage with.
In the flat, the thermal store also runs the heating, so if the pump survived then the heating would also still work - and if not then I could replace the pump without having to wait for the overstretched gas fitters to arrive, decide what parts they need, order the parts, wait for them to arrive, find time to come back and fit them, etc, etc.
There's a good chance the pump would have died (it's an electronic modulating type), but I could use a standard one short term which is in stock at just about any plumbers merchants.

Of course, not much help to all those people who wouldn't know one end of a screwdriver from the other.

 

[westie101]

without having to wait for the overstretched gas fitters to arrive, decide what parts they need, order the parts, wait for them to arrive, find time to come back and fit them, etc, etc.

As explained earlier we have a specialist company that repairs the electronics, usually by replacing burnt out components of the power supplies. They have been doing this for years and so know pretty much exactly the extent of damage each appliance will suffer.

In cases like this, once on site they don't leave until finished

 

[SimonH2]

Gas Safe registered, or is this for the general electronic itms only ?
And how long do they take to get round a few hundred houses ?

From the news reports, it sounds more like they have been draughting in gas fitters from all over to swap control panels in boilers.

 

[westie101]

Gas Safe registered, or is this for the general electronic itms only

Given the size and visibility of ENWL, do you really think we would use anyone that was not properly trained and authorised? But in this case the guys mainly deal with the electronics.

Hadn't seen that about the gas fitters, but again they will be here until the job is finished.

A bit of an update, out of about 600 properties
Total boilers affected 102
150 properties had all the electronics wiped out, some others less damage, other companies drafted in to repair if possible.

Ex Gratia payment has been increased as most are uninsured (NOTE we are not obliged to pay compensation in these cases as there is no negligence if a piece of equipment goes faulty, but do make an ex-gratia payment)

The actual fault was on the single core copper cable (400mm2) from the transformer to the LV panel.

 

[SimonH2]

Given the size and visibility of ENWL, do you really think we would use anyone that was not properly trained and authorised? But in this case the guys mainly deal with the electronics.

No, but I imagine there are very, very few people who are both Gas Safe registered and capable of doing component level repair. Your description sounded fine for people repairing various consumer electronics.

A bit of an update, out of about 600 properties
Total boilers affected 102
150 properties had all the electronics wiped out, some others less damage, other companies drafted in to repair if possible.
...
The actual fault was on the single core copper cable (400mm2) from the transformer to the LV panel.

That's interesting, we don't normally get to hear about stuff like that once the initial "isn't the lecky company bad" media frenzy

 

[JohnW2]

Ex Gratia payment has been increased as most are uninsured (NOTE we are not obliged to pay compensation in these cases as there is no negligence if a piece of equipment goes faulty, but do make an ex-gratia payment)

Are you talking about ex gratia payments in addition to paying for the cost of the repairs (or replacements), or are the customers getting charged for the repairs?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

Simon, true as the press isn't really interested in facts at times.

John, it's in addition to the costs of repairs (we do not replace equipment, we did at one time but sadly folk started ripping us off) and will ensure a nice Christmas for some!
Biggest problem is getting the cheques to the right people and making sure there are no fraudulent claims.

 

[JohnW2]

John, it's in addition to the costs of repairs (we do not replace equipment, we did at one time but sadly folk started ripping us off)

That's a bit arbitrary, isn't it? You've said of the repairers that "once on site they don't leave until finished", which implies that they will 'do whatever it takes' to repair the damaged equipment - yet, if it transpires that it is beyond repair, the equipment won't be replaced. That seems odd, not the least because it seems to penalise those who have suffered cthe most serious damage.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

That's a bit arbitrary, isn't it?

I said

(we do not replace equipment, we did at one time but sadly folk started ripping us off)

Every broken, old, not used any more, appliances from other family members suddenly used to appear for replacement - so we stopped doing that!

It's a tried and tested proceedure that has been shown to be leagally acceptable and acceptable to the regulator.
Financially it would possibly be less expensive to replace, but the minefield of agreeing what needs to be replaced is not worth it.
The payment is by way of an apology for the disruption rather than the replacement of damaged goods. It could also be seen as "unfair" as those that are insured get the same as those that arn't.

I'm sure that as a company we would like to see a fairer method, perhaps if you have one you could let me know and I'll pass it up the line.

As I often mention, we have done this before, we have done this for years, we regularly meet to see if what we do is in the interests of both the customer and the company.
Other organisations regularly appear in the press as walking away, something we do not do (though legally we could), I can see from the outside looking in what we do is sometimes a bit odd, but we do not make this up as we go along!

 

[JohnW2]

That's a bit arbitrary, isn't it?

I said

(we do not replace equipment, we did at one time but sadly folk started ripping us off)

Every broken, old, not used any more, appliances from other family members suddenly used to appear for replacement - so we stopped doing that!

Yes, I know you said that, but if I'm interpreting you correctly, I don't understand the logic. Why is it any easier to detect those fraudulent situations if you are attempting to repair the equipmnet than if you decide that it is not repairable?

Consider this. You are confronted by a 'broken' piece of equipment. If I understand you correctly, your people/contractors are prepared to spend as much time and materials as it takes to repair it. However, you seem to be saying that, if the ultimate decision is that it is not repairable, you suddenly decide that it might be fraudulent (even those you were quite happy to repair it), and therfore do not replace. If that's correct, then does it make any sense?

I'm sure that as a company we would like to see a fairer method, perhaps if you have one you could let me know and I'll pass it up the line.

See above. The question about whether or not there is a fraudulent claim that damage was due to a supply fault is totally different and separate from the question as to whether or not the damage is repairable. If you are happy to repair ('at any cost') you surely should be equally prepared to replace. If you suspect fraud (goodness knows how), you should neither repair nor replace.

I think I may be misunderstanding, since what you appear to be saying doesn't really make much logical sense.

Kind Regards, John.