What is law on position of gas meter?

chanz4

The problem you have, the ombudsman cant over rule GTC. if you don't comply you will be cut from their network

C_Mababejive

It appears that when the house was constructed,the meters were on the outside front wall. you have now added a porch of some description. GTC are probably saying that you have built over the incoming service pipe and are insisting that it be altered back to outside otherwise they will cut you off. They are right. This is the same for lots of people. The favourite is a semi detached house which then has a garage or extension added to the side.

kab10

The ombudsman can do something about it and our investigating it otherwise why would they investigate after I told them everything? Apparently this happens a lot, it wasnt the first time she had heard of a transporter company going above what regulations say and demanding work to be done dispite all regulations saying will 'look' for work to be done it doesn't say it 'must' or 'needs' to be done.
We know it's not ideal for safety but it's been like that for 6 years now and I'm sure we are like many people in this country with fact that we can't afford to have work done.
They may want nearly £400 but then there's god knows what cost to put right the interior of the porch and the £120 for reconnection.
What I don't understand is that if this is meant to be part of building regulations since 1997 then why have all the different builders who have done the porches or even garage convertions in our streets not said anything that leaving meters where they are will not be to standard??

r32

From my own investigation, this is NOT part of the building regulations. I found a consultation document on the government website when I was googling which suggested that gas safety regs were added to be part of building regs. Will try and dig up the link again and post.

This seems to be why building inspectors don't seem to flag up building over a service pipe even though they inspect the groundworks.

What I don't understand is how the various suppliers seem to think people can just find £800 (in my case) to have the pipe rerouted OR have their gas cut off!

If there was a monthly payment option I would take that, but I simply don't have £800 to give them.

jalexa

r32 wrote: »

This seems to be why building inspectors don't seem to flag up building over a service pipe even though they inspect the groundworks.

I think that may be a reasonable argument and I don't support suppliers acting in a heavy handed way with a "contrived" allusion to "standards".

You didn't say in your own thread what type of room the gas meter ended up in but in this thread the gas meter ended up on an "escape route". IMO, that would be "negligent" of somebody, not sure who, but property does not remain in current ownership in perpetuity and visitors are entitled to a safe environment.

I don't however support retrospective enforcement, particularly where there is no network risk which I think is the unanswered issue in both threads.

And one other point, a builder does not trump an architect.

C_Mababejive

Builders and building inspectors should be aware that it isnt acceptable to enclose a live gas service pipe in this manner and that they should consider the costs of resiting same when quoting. Perhaps they plead ignorance to keep the quote down thus leaving the occupier to deal with it later?

If an occupier decided they wanted to add an extension to the side of their home but discovered there was a 6" gas main in the way,what would they do ? Build over it?

Same difference.

Of course some people have new build homes and dont even know that they have a gas main in their garden !

Do you think the developers have a duty to tell them ?

r32

jalexa wrote: »

You didn't say in your own thread what type of room the gas meter ended up in but in this thread the gas meter ended up on an "escape route". IMO, that would be "negligent" of somebody, not sure who, but property does not remain in current ownership in perpetuity and visitors are entitled to a safe environment.

I don't however support retrospective enforcement, particularly where there is no network risk which I think is the unanswered issue in both threads.

And one other point, a builder does not trump an architect.

In my case the pipe is now under the new room in the side extension, which is a utility room and doesn't lead to an exit.

From what I've read though, the concern would be a leak under that new room leading to a gas buildup and potentially a nasty result. I obviously don't want to be putting my family at risk, but it would be nice to understand in reality exactly how much of a risk it is, especially as NGN don't seem to be in any rush to fix it.

Its interesting that you mention the architech, because I went back and checked the plans for the extension. They do show a meter box on the outside of the house (i.e. relocated), but thats it. No description of any details of pipework to be relocated and it only shows on some of the elevation drawings...

Makes me think that either the builder missed that, or didn't fancy waiting on NGN to move the supply.

In the end I'm sure I will pay up to move the supply, although it will be nigh on a year before I can pull together that sort of money so hopfully NGN will understand and not cut us off!

jalexa

r32 wrote: »

the concern would be a leak under that new room leading to a gas buildup and potentially a nasty result.

In the short/medium term you could mitigate that with a gas sensor (gas, not the more common carbon monoxide), though I think the risk is probably way way below the failure rate of cheap domestic sensors.

spiro

jalexa wrote: »

In the short/medium term you could mitigate that with a gas sensor (gas, not the more common carbon monoxide), though I think the risk is probably way way below the failure rate of cheap domestic sensors.

If the pipe is under a concrete floor the problem is that a dector is unlikely to detect anything until the volume of gas under the floor has reached a dangerous level or goes bang.

jalexa

spiro wrote: »

If the pipe is under a concrete floor the problem is that a dector is unlikely to detect anything until the volume of gas under the floor has reached a dangerous level or goes bang.

Having read all 53 pages of one of the gas explosion reports linked in a recent thread, that comment does not make sense. The gas is not "dangerous" until (1) in sufficient volume (2) in an explosive mix with air and (3) subject to ignition, none of which apply at the point of burial beneath a concrete floor (though the report describes other gas paths from a leak source to an inhabited space where all conditions might develop).