Reconnect Gas cooker Hose?

BobQ

gas4you wrote: »

If he classed it as ID then he should have undone the bayonet, then cut the bayonet connector off and capped the gas pipe so nobody could reconnect the cooker.

So because the cooker has a repairable fault this justifies damaging a perfectly good hose and expecting the owner of the fitting to pay for a new one? Maybe he should wreck the whole kitchen too?:mad: Its this kind of behaviour that makes people unwisely indulge in DIY!

Out of interest where in the regulations does it state that for an ID (where the owner allows you to disconnect the bayonet from the supply, agrees not to use it, and you affix a label saying it is unsafe to use) you must also cut off the bayonet connector?

gardner1

AquaJen wrote: »

I would definitely advise against reconnecting it yourself unless you have the correct equipment and knowledge to carry out a tightness test afterwards.

it wont need any equipment it you just pushes on and turn clockwise
as for tightness test just hold lighter near it;)

keystone

BobQ wrote: »

So because the cooker has a repairable fault this justifies damaging a perfectly good hose and expecting the owner of the fitting to pay for a new one? Maybe he should wreck the whole kitchen too?:mad: Its this kind of behaviour that makes people unwisely indulge in DIY!

Calm down dear its only a forum.

The answser to your question is a resounding NO because the gas fitter in question clearly didn't identify the fault as Immediately Dangerous otherwise he should have ensured that it could not be reconnected by similar method to that deescribed by G4Y. At Risk only required him to remove the hose which is what he did.

If he had dealt with an AR problem as being ID (which he didn't) then your might have cause to write your post as you have written it. But at the end of the day we have to recognise that it's the fitters decision and his responsibility. He is the one that is liable. He is the one that can go to prison if it all goes t.ts up Against that the cost of a new hose is nothing.

Cheers

keystone

gardner1 wrote: »

it wont need any equipment it you just pushes on and turn clockwise

Exactly - having removed the blank and the gunge previously of course.

as for tightness test just hold lighter near it;)

10 minutes on the naughty step for you. You do of course mean Leak Detection Fluid although I suppose your solution might be construed as amounting to the same thing :rotfl:.

Cheers

gas4you

BobQ wrote: »

So because the cooker has a repairable fault this justifies damaging a perfectly good hose and expecting the owner of the fitting to pay for a new one? Maybe he should wreck the whole kitchen too?:mad: Its this kind of behaviour that makes people unwisely indulge in DIY!

Out of interest where in the regulations does it state that for an ID (where the owner allows you to disconnect the bayonet from the supply, agrees not to use it, and you affix a label saying it is unsafe to use) you must also cut off the bayonet connector?

Sorry, upon re-reading my post I haven't made it clear that I meant cutting the female bayonet connector off from the copper gas supply pipe.

NOT cutting the bayonet off the flexible cooker hose.

Any gas appliance that is deemed ID must be disconnected from the gas supply and the gas supply capped off to eliminate the appliance being reconnected after the RGI has left.

But, a RGI can only disconnect any appliance with the responsible persons permission. He cannot take it upon himself to disconnect without permission.

If no permission is given and the appliance is deemed ID, then the RGI has to call out the gas transporter, who has the legal power to enter a property to disconnect the gas meter.

unclebulgaria

Unfortunately BobQ people don't read the "some" bit. They'll take that as all because you mentioned turning an advisory notice into work that needs to be done. Thats the idea of an advisory notice, its a pointer to the fact things have changed for a reason. We don't make the rules up as we go along, its usually that we've made a mistake in interpretting a rule or sometimes being a little over zealous or god forbid we got it right but the customer didn't want to hear it! Either way its a tiny minority that ruin it for the rest, as with everything. Its not always easy when you have the worry that if you leave an appliance working you have that niggling worry "was I right?" Personally I would rather have a b8ll8cking for being a little over zealous than have the police knocking on my door to arrest me for being too lacksy daisy. Apologies if you're not tarring us all but its everyone else reading it that bothers me!

BobQ

unclebulgaria wrote: »

Unfortunately BobQ people don't read the "some" bit. They'll take that as all because you mentioned turning an advisory notice into work that needs to be done. Thats the idea of an advisory notice, its a pointer to the fact things have changed for a reason. We don't make the rules up as we go along, its usually that we've made a mistake in interpretting a rule or sometimes being a little over zealous or god forbid we got it right but the customer didn't want to hear it! Either way its a tiny minority that ruin it for the rest, as with everything. Its not always easy when you have the worry that if you leave an appliance working you have that niggling worry "was I right?" Personally I would rather have a b8ll8cking for being a little over zealous than have the police knocking on my door to arrest me for being too lacksy daisy. Apologies if you're not tarring us all but its everyone else reading it that bothers me!

I agree and I do see your viewpoint, nobody should be cavalier about people's safety and you have a job to do that is under a regulatory framework.

I think there is a difference between saying to a customer,
(a) I have to give you an advisory notice. I can see when this was done it complied with the regulation and its not unsafe in its present condition. I just need to tell you that this grill is not up to current regulations.
and
(b) I have to serve this notice on you. Your installation contains potentially dangerous defects that must be attended to in the near future. As it happens I could come and fix it for you tomorrow and then you would be legal.

I realsie that the vast majority are fair as you say.