Annual gas safety check - failure

unforeseen

I see absolutely nothing in the OPs posts that says anything was actually dangerous. I see hysterical assumptions from a number of posters though

The OP stated

he can't complete the safety check, that he will have to switch of my gas because the flue pipe is wrapped around with duct tape.

No danger mentioned there.

he is stating that he is switching the gas off because he cannot successfully complete the required safety check. Because the safety check has commenced then the appliance is considered to be unsafe until the checks are complete and it can be signed off. The appliance has been isolated as a safety precaution NOT because it is dangerous, he had no evidence of that. The tape in itself is not evidence of danger but covers something that he will need to check before issuing a pass.

emmastevens

Hi guys, wow, so many replies. Thank you. I'm not sure how to add pic, so what the "notice for your concern" says is "The installation is dangerous because flue has been taped at the joint with the wall. Incorrect materials."

Rodders53

bris wrote: »

Just seen this, no anyone can just turn it back on, what if a relative comes in and doesn't know why it's turned off in the first place? This is just one reason why turning it off at the isolation valve is still dangerous.


It gets physically capped so it can't just be turned back on, it is illegal for anyone to take the cap off and reconnect it.

Errmmm.... The legally required label that Gas Safe fitters MUST fix to the appliance etc.,... ????
https://www.gassafetyshop.co.uk/products/Gas-Safe-Immediately-Dangerous-ID-Labels-Triangles

People would be pretty darned stupid to ignore that? And if that stupid/determined they would likely reconnect at the capped off meter regardless of the consequences.

BTW Pedantic I may be being but if it is illegal for anyone to take the cap off, how is this going to ever be fixed? :rotfl: as anyone includes a Gas Safe tech :eek:.

thesaint

bris wrote: »

As an engineer I can tell you it's immediately dangerous and must be disconnected. It should also be RIDDOR reported and who ever did this will be in serious trouble with the HSE.


I will if the forum team ask me provide my credentials to them.

Are stating that once duct tape is on the flue it is dangerous no matter what is underneath?

G_M

Originally Posted by bris
As an engineer I can tell you it's immediately dangerous and must be disconnected.

thesaint wrote: »

Are stating that once duct tape is on the flue it is dangerous no matter what is underneath?

Following on from Rodders53's comment about pedantry, I imagine bris meant:
" it's immediately treated as dangerous ....." (or "considered as") for the purposes of the inspection.

Even though it may not actually be dangerous.

If you found an unexploded WW2 bomb in your garden, the chances are it would be harmless after all this time. But I bet you'd tape it off, keep people away, refrain from digging the potatoes next to it, and call bomb-disposal......... ie treat it as dangerous just in case.

Miss_Samantha

G_M wrote: »

If you found an unexploded WW2 bomb in your garden, the chances are it would be harmless after all this time. But I bet you'd tape it off, keep people away, refrain from digging the potatoes next to it, and call bomb-disposal......... ie treat it as dangerous just in case.

How is that example remotely similar?

We don't know what bris meant, only what he wrote. I think he would be the best person to answer thesaint's query.

thesaint

I was a nominated tester(M.O.T tester)a few years ago.

As an example, the spare tyre is a testable item. If I couldn't get access to it because the boot was full, I was not allowed to empty the boot to check it.

I could not fail the car even if I suspected there was either no spare tyre, or the spare was illegal. So, remotely, I could tell someone that they must pass a car if they can't access it.

Maybe Gas Safe is different, and items that can't be accessed are a fail, and bris can do this remotely without seeing it.

nologo

Very poor example
Nominated tester for over 20 years, condition or presence spare wheel has never been a testable item for cars...

thesaint

nologo wrote: »

Very poor example
Nominated tester for over 20 years, condition or presence spare wheel has never been a testable item for cars...

Probably a poor example, I wouldn't say "very" poor, unless, you confirm I am incorrect in principle when I say that you have to fail if you can't access a testable item?

booksurr

spare tyre presence of, condition of, or access to, is not a testable item. Presumably your garage owner wanted you to scam the customer for a retest fee and a new tyre fitting??

Section 2.12 - Spare wheels and tyres are not inspected.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/car-parts-checked-at-an-mot/car-parts-checked-at-an-mot

This inspection applies to
Tyres fitted to the road wheels only. The vehicle presenter should be informed when it is noticed that there is a defective tyre on a spare wheel.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_410.htm