jeffuk said:
I hope it was helpful - it was intended to be so.
I believe it to be the PCB, but in any event it probably doesn't matter because what isn't disputed is that the boiler failed an excessive number of times even though it was repaired each time by what is accepted as an expert ie a corgi registered engineer.
It's your opinion (and submission) that the RGI is an expert, but it isn't true of
every RGI, therefore you would need evidence that
your RGIs were experts on that particular model.
If this seems an odd assertion to you, then please consider that many people can fault-find boilers to LRU level, and do so quite successfully and efficiently, and then replace that part with a new one obtained from the manufacturer, and install it according to the manufacturer's instructions, and test the installation according to those MIs and according to their training. This requires no analysis whatsoever of the failure mode, or of the quality of design and/or manufacture of the part that failed.
Evidence that it failed is available and isn't disputed and the burden of proof is that "on the balance of probabilities" ie the judge must be better than 50% certain - it was an inherent fault ie either a design or manufacturing fault.
Quite so - you obviously know more than the average layperson, but you being more than 50% certain is not the same thing as the judge being more than 50% certain.
I'm not certain that it is that difficult to prove that "on the balance of probabilities" there was something wrong in the manufacture of these boilers whether it was the PCB or not. The BBC article backed up by my verbal submission may prove this satisfactorily on their own - I'm simply looking for anything more that might be available to back up my personal clear suspicion that it's the PCB.
Quite so - you
do need something more.
I think some replies to this have rather missed the point. I have not said and I am not saying that every problem with the Suprima boiler is the PCB, or that every PCB that has been repaired or replaced was the correct treatment for the problem.
In that case you're missing my point, which is that the judge is likely to ask, and pretty early on to boot, whether or not
every board fails in the same way, and whether
every boiler has had a failed board.
The claim is that there was a problem with this particular range of boiler that made them go wrong more than they should do. It doesn't mean that every boiler went wrong - or that every boiler that went wrong had this specific fault.
And if the percentage of boilers-with-a-failed-board is less than half of the installed boilers, then you're going to look pretty foolish brandishing little more than a report from a TV programme that is renowned for regularly sensationalising trivial problems in order to create entertaining witch hunts against businesses and manufacturers.
IMHO, you have no hope in court without a written report from an expert on the subject, but, since I foresee that you won't be commissioning one, I wish you the very best of luck.