Flues in voids

semicharmed

I have just been informed by a gas engineer that my property requires an inspection hatch to be installed in order to visually inspect the flue route as per new regulations that came into force last year January. My builder's warranty just expired in August last year so I am responsible for having this fitted. Does anyone know how much it will cost and of a reputable company who can supply and fit the hatches and are aware of the new regulations? Thanks much.

molerat

For an owner occupied property it is not a legal requirement to have the hatches fitted. After Jan 2013 if the engineer cannot insprct the flue he will classify the installation as "at risk" and will ask your permission to turn the boiler off. You do not have to grant that permission and he will give you some paperwork to sign to state that you understand the risk. He will do the same the following year. It is of course advisable to have them fitted for your own safety.

Any competent builder can install hatches but will need the guidance of a GSR as to position and number. The hatches can be purchased from as little as £20 each but these may not meet fire / soundproofing requirements. Some companies are quoting £5-600 for 3 hatches installed.

unclebulgaria

molerat wrote: »

For an owner occupied property it is not a legal requirement to have the hatches fitted. After Jan 2013 if the engineer cannot insprct the flue he will classify the installation as "at risk" and will ask your permission to turn the boiler off. You do not have to grant that permission and he will give you some paperwork to sign to state that you understand the risk. He will do the same the following year. It is of course advisable to have them fitted for your own safety.

You might want to remember that if a GSR engineer cant inspect the flue (chimney as its now known) and he labels the installation as at risk, if you dont give your permission to turn off the supply he could always call the ESP and have them turn off your appliance or gas because of your refusal. What you have to take into account is that the flue/chimney may have a fault that may not only affect the householder but his/her neighbour through the wall or roof space that cant be seen. Usually, at the moment, an appliance flue/chimney that cant be inspected maybe listed as not to current standards but if there are signs of staining or the engineer in question believes there maybe a good chance of a fault thats not visible due to none existant hatches he would list it as AR. No permission to turn an appliance off isn't the end off his responsibilty even if he has a signature.

rogerblack

semicharmed wrote: »

My builder's warranty just expired in August last year so I am responsible for having this fitted..

To address this part - it's very unlikely a warranty would cover work required due to legislative changes, not a defect in the original work.

In addition, with the rise of inexpensive endoscopes, I wonder if that would count as 'visual'.

molerat

unclebulgaria wrote: »

You might want to remember that if a GSR engineer cant inspect the flue (chimney as its now known) and he labels the installation as at risk, if you dont give your permission to turn off the supply he could always call the ESP and have them turn off your appliance or gas because of your refusal. What you have to take into account is that the flue/chimney may have a fault that may not only affect the householder but his/her neighbour through the wall or roof space that cant be seen. Usually, at the moment, an appliance flue/chimney that cant be inspected maybe listed as not to current standards but if there are signs of staining or the engineer in question believes there maybe a good chance of a fault thats not visible due to none existant hatches he would list it as AR. No permission to turn an appliance off isn't the end off his responsibilty even if he has a signature.

Not according to GIUSP, only in ID situations. http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/PDF/GIUSP%20Edition%206%20-%20publication%20web%20version%20V1.2.pdf

unclebulgaria

molerat wrote: »

Not according to GIUSP, only in ID situations. http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/PDF/GIUSP%20Edition%206%20-%20publication%20web%20version%20V1.2.pdf

Have to disagree.
You're correct with the GIUSP, had it confirmed last Friday by Gas Safe and ESP. Gas fire with damaged external chimney stack showing smoke through more than one pot (next doors adjoining) customer refused to allow me to isolate the appliance. Called GSR who agreed AR and told me to call ESP who came around and gave customer option of isolation or turn off gas.
Just a point, the rule of two or more faults on a gas appliance only applies to open flued appliances unless its obviously dangerous then its ID anyway.

macman

TMA (too many acronyms)!
I'm guessing that AR is 'at risk', but what's ID please (immediate disconnect)?

molerat

Immediately Dangerous

Looks like the usual Gas Safe make it up as we go along then. I was under the impression that GIUSP was the Gas Safe interpretation of the law and regulations which in this case has differed from the advice given to you. According to GIUSP you do not have the right to disconnect an AR installation "NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED"

ollski

Got to agree molerat, disconnection is only for an ID situation. The turn off required for an AR is only at a customer control, be it power or isolation valve.Certainly can't disconnect from the gas supply for AR.

unclebulgaria wrote: »

if there are signs of staining or the engineer in question believes there maybe a good chance of a fault thats not visible due to none existant hatches he would list it as AR.

I wouldn't, signs of staining ID.

unclebulgaria

ollski wrote: »

Got to agree molerat, disconnection is only for an ID situation. The turn off required for an AR is only at a customer control, be it power or isolation valve.Certainly can't disconnect from the gas supply for AR.



I wouldn't, signs of staining ID.

Well it wouldn't be the first time I've had two different interpretations from GS in the same morning. I've decided I'm better emphasising the "you may be breaking the law" bit when dealing with AR. It usually works right or wrong. Sorry OP I digress.