Advice on condemned gas fire

wafers

Advice needed in this scenario if possible.
My parents had a gas fire fitted in their bungalow about three years back. It runs on LPG. For the last two years, a gas engineer has serviced the fire. It just so happens that he's the son of the chap who fitted it when new.
During the last two services, the engineer noted that there appeared to be some minor evidence of monoxide leakage. On the most recent service he undertook, he tested and claimed that there didn't appear to be any leaks at that actual moment in time. I'm not sure if he tested for this on the previous occasion. He did mention something about whether the seal where the fire front locates on the main unit may need replacing next time.
My parents called in a different gas tester to service the system earlier in the week, as the previous chap no longer responds to phone calls and is assumed to not operate any more.
The latest gas tester instantly condemned the system. His reasons were:
* Clear evidence of monoxide leakage, including a chalky buildup around some areas of the fire.
* Evidence that downdraught was affecting ventilation of the gas burning.

He also mentioned that he didn't feel the cowl should have been fitted on the flue which exits on the roof of the bungalow. His argument was that there must have been clear evidence of downdraught issues from the outset and that a gas fire of this nature was not appropriate when this was an evident problem. My father did recall the original fitter mentioning that that the paperwork for the gas fire did mention that it was suitable for a chimney with a cowl fitted.

So the outcome is that my parents have had the gas supply disconnected from the fire, and will be replacing it with an electric one whilst they weigh up their options.
They spent around £800 on the gas fire alone and are bitterly disappointed with the outcome, and the fact the unit appears to have potentially been a death trap for the last three years.

Any thoughts or suggestions? I personally feel they have a strong case against the gas engineer who they have paid to service the system for the last two years. In my eyes, any evidence of monoxide leakage is surely enough to condemn it straight away? I wondered whether he didn't want to suggest that his father's handiwork wasn't necessarily up to scratch.

Im not entirely sure my parents want to 'upset' the chap who serviced the system and walked away on two occasions knowing it has been leaking fumes at some points.

However, rules are rules and I'm pretty angry that my parents have lived with a potentially dangerous system for the last three years.

Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Cardew

Im not entirely sure my parents want to 'upset' the chap who serviced the system and walked away on two occasions knowing it has been leaking fumes at some points.

'You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs!'

The obvious path is to sue the original tradesman who fitted the fire, and perhaps his son, in the Small Claims court - assuming they won't return your parent's money.

You will need some expert evidence. Has the latest fitter given you a written report?

You might get some assistance from the 'Health and Safety' department of the local council. If it was an unsafe installation they might take action. If not try Trading Standards.

Often just serving court papers will get the defendants to settle out of court.

wafers

Cardew wrote: »

'You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs!'

The obvious path is to sue the original tradesman who fitted the fire, and perhaps his son, in the Small Claims court - assuming they won't return your parent's money.

You will need some expert evidence. Has the latest fitter given you a written report?

You might get some assistance from the 'Health and Safety' department of the local council. If it was an unsafe installation they might take action. If not try Trading Standards.

Often just serving court papers will get the defendants to settle out of court.

Thanks for the info. I'll query what evidence the latest fitter has given and establish how things have been left. I may have to push this myself as I don't envisage them being too comfortable taking the original tradesman to court - he's one of the cheeky charmer types. I still maintain my viewpoint though that between him and his son, my parents have been living with a dangerous appliance, despite paying for annual safety checks/ services.

rustyboy21

You will have to get the investigator to state that the spilling would have been a continuous issue to have much sway in court TBH. I had an issue with a fire I had fitted . It went kaput and I got the manufacturer out. They condemned it as it was spilling fumes into the room. I got a very good engineer I know out the next day to check it and he said it was fine, no spilling whatsoever. It appeared that when the wind was in a certain direction, there was slight down draught, which caused the spill of fumes.

You may be able to get the fire reconnected if a rotating gas cowl was installed. This would create a positive pull on the flue and make the fire ok again.

I know you are worried that the fire is a death trap, but it may have only been spilling at certain times and a small amount. In reality it takes a hell of a lot of CO to create a dangerous situation. If it was really bad the flame sensing device would kick in and cut the gas off anyway. All fires have been fitted with these for over 10 years now. Instead of going to further expense, ask a proper gas safe qualified sweep/flue specialist to check your flue and see if a rotating cowl could help, at least they can still use the fire which cost them a lot.

wafers

rustyboy21 wrote: »

You will have to get the investigator to state that the spilling would have been a continuous issue to have much sway in court TBH. I had an issue with a fire I had fitted . It went kaput and I got the manufacturer out. They condemned it as it was spilling fumes into the room. I got a very good engineer I know out the next day to check it and he said it was fine, no spilling whatsoever. It appeared that when the wind was in a certain direction, there was slight down draught, which caused the spill of fumes.

You may be able to get the fire reconnected if a rotating gas cowl was installed. This would create a positive pull on the flue and make the fire ok again.

I know you are worried that the fire is a death trap, but it may have only been spilling at certain times and a small amount. In reality it takes a hell of a lot of CO to create a dangerous situation. If it was really bad the flame sensing device would kick in and cut the gas off anyway. All fires have been fitted with these for over 10 years now. Instead of going to further expense, ask a proper gas safe qualified sweep/flue specialist to check your flue and see if a rotating cowl could help, at least they can still use the fire which cost them a lot.

This is really informative - thank you. I've forwarded your notes to my parents who will discuss the leakage and potential for a rotating cowl with the previous gas engineer (the one potentially at fault) next week. They've got hold of him, told him the score and he's going to visit to have a look and chat. All steps in the right direction.

Chimney_Sweep_3

Did he heat the flue before testing, some will spill at first until flue is warmed, it also checks the ventilation, all windows door closed when warming for 10 minutes.

matelodave

Have they got a carbon Monoxide alarm - that would at least give warning of an unsafe situation, even if it was only intermittent

wafers

Chimney_Sweep wrote: »

Did he heat the flue before testing, some will spill at first until flue is warmed, it also checks the ventilation, all windows door closed when warming for 10 minutes.

Not entirely sure...

wafers

matelodave wrote: »

Have they got a carbon Monoxide alarm - that would at least give warning of an unsafe situation, even if it was only intermittent

Good point. Their existing one was a few years old, so they've gone out and bought a new one. The old one never sounded, however.

The current situation is the original chap who serviced the fire for the last couple of years still doesn't feel there's an issue with the system. He believes the leakage and downdraught is minimal, and wasn't convinced a rotating cowl would be the right choice. He explained they can end up accelerating the burn and end up causing issues with unburnt gas being released. He's going to fit a new seal on the 'front' on the gas fire, which is removed during each service and then slid back onto the seal. All sounds legit at this point I guess...