Gas Engineer lying about dangerous issues

everyone_else

980233 said:

everyone_else said:

AdrianC said:

everyone_else said:

I have become an accidental landlord after I had to move for a job.

No, you consciously chose to start a residential lettings business.

The same rules apply to you as to people who do not try to deny that fact.

After a year of tenancy I contacted the management company because the gas safety certificate was about to expire. I asked them to contact a company I instructed myself the year before but they suggested I used one of their engineers that were slightly cheaper. I agreed not thinking much of it. After the inspection the engineer had put several "dangerous" signs on the boiler
...
Some of the issues were mentioned in the certificate from previous year but only as advisories.
...
I ended up calling the original company myself, they had no issues sending an engineer over within 2 days and he found no problems at all with the boiler, no carbon monoxide was leaking, and he issues the certificate. 

It is quite clear to me that the management company is working together with the gas engineer to get extra works done using scare tactics.

Or, perhaps, the issue is borderline - acceptable in one engineer's opinion, not acceptable in another's.

Which of the two is being more responsible? The one that leans towards safety, or the one that leans away from it?

My tenants were obviously worried about having scary signs on their boiler, as was I of course! I am now unsure what my next steps should be.

Given that the issues undoubtedly exist, since your preferred company flagged them last year, I'd be getting the work done.

I was referring to becoming an "accidental landlord" as I have seen this phrase used before for people who did not set out to become a landlord, I was just trying to to give a bit of a background not to say that different rules apply to me.

You think it is responsible to say carbon monoxide is leaking from a boiler when it is not? Clearly this is not about leaning or not leaning towards safety, it is flat out lying... 

I take it you had had a second independent engineer to visit and confirm this?

Or are you an expert sniffer of this odorless and colourless gas?

Did you read the post?? The issues I have is that I got a second opinion and they said there was no gas leaking. No need for this passive aggressive snarkiness.

lookstraightahead

So you have one opinion of each, why don't you get british gas to have a look? 

AdrianC

everyone_else said:

I was referring to becoming an "accidental landlord" as I have seen this phrase used before for people who did not set out to become a landlord

Except you did.

You consciously decided to let your house not sell it.
You found and hired a letting agent.
You searched for, referenced, approved a tenant, and signed a legally binding tenancy with them.
You didn't just wake up one morning with a hangover and a sinking feeling that something had happened...

Yes, it's a common phrase used by people who don't want to admit they deliberately started their residential lettings business, especially when they're trying to make out the regulations they are failing to conform to are unreasonably harsh.

You think it is responsible to say carbon monoxide is leaking from a boiler when it is not? Clearly this is not about leaning or not leaning towards safety, it is flat out lying...

Perhaps it's really nowhere near as black and white as that?

There is an acceptable level of CO from a boiler. CO is a permanently present part of the atmosphere.

https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/carbon-monoxide

In cities, background CO can be as high as 17ppm.
Maximum levels in flues can be as high as 400ppm, which is the point at which it risks fatalities.

So what's the GSC upper acceptable figure? I can't easily find a definitive reference, but there are suggestions of 200ppm, with a suggestion to increase to 350ppm a few years ago.

https://www.co-gassafety.co.uk/hhic-specifying-maximum-amount-of-co/

What figure did the two guys get?
If the cap is indeed 200ppm, and one guy got 199ppm, while the other got 201ppm, then how does that affect your accusations?

everyone_else said:

Did you read the post?? The issues I have is that I got a second opinion and they said there was no gas leaking.

No, they said the level was not unacceptable. But we don't know how far it was from that threshold.

Your CO alarm doesn't go off. What concentration does that require? Does it even work?

Pixie5740

You know that Gas Safety Engineers must be registered so if you want to make a complaint then the Gas Safety Register would seem like the obvious place to start. 

https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/help-and-advice/complaints-report-an-illegal/

everyone_else

AdrianC said:

everyone_else said:

I was referring to becoming an "accidental landlord" as I have seen this phrase used before for people who did not set out to become a landlord

Except you did.

You consciously decided to let your house not sell it.
You found and hired a letting agent.
You searched for, referenced, approved a tenant, and signed a legally binding tenancy with them.
You didn't just wake up one morning with a hangover and a sinking feeling that something had happened...

Yes, it's a common phrase used by people who don't want to admit they deliberately started their residential lettings business, especially when they're trying to make out the regulations they are failing to conform to are unreasonably harsh.

You think it is responsible to say carbon monoxide is leaking from a boiler when it is not? Clearly this is not about leaning or not leaning towards safety, it is flat out lying...

Perhaps it's really nowhere near as black and white as that?

There is an acceptable level of CO from a boiler. CO is a permanently present part of the atmosphere.

https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/carbon-monoxide

In cities, background CO can be as high as 17ppm.
Maximum levels in flues can be as high as 400ppm, which is the point at which it risks fatalities.

So what's the GSC upper acceptable figure? I can't easily find a definitive reference, but there are suggestions of 200ppm, with a suggestion to increase to 350ppm a few years ago.

https://www.co-gassafety.co.uk/hhic-specifying-maximum-amount-of-co/

What figure did the two guys get?
If the cap is indeed 200ppm, and one guy got 199ppm, while the other got 201ppm, then how does that affect your accusations?

everyone_else said:

Did you read the post?? The issues I have is that I got a second opinion and they said there was no gas leaking.

No, they said the level was not unacceptable. But we don't know how far it was from that threshold.

Your CO alarm doesn't go off. What concentration does that require? Does it even work?

I seem to have really struck a nerve by trying to find a quick way to explain that I do not have previous experience in the field and why I'm here asking for opinions on how to approach this issue. 

Just had a look at the Warning Notice issued by the original engineer, all it says is "giving off high levels of carbon monoxide". I do wonder if they are required to note down the exact measurement somewhere else, if not I guess it would be tricky to get to the bottom of the different results. 

Anyway thanks for your input!

lookstraightahead

Pixie5740 said:

You know that Gas Safety Engineers must be registered so if you want to make a complaint then the Gas Safety Register would seem like the obvious place to start. 

https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/help-and-advice/complaints-report-an-illegal/

Op, I agree this is what you need to do.

980233

everyone_else said:

980233 said:

everyone_else said:

AdrianC said:

everyone_else said:

I have become an accidental landlord after I had to move for a job.

No, you consciously chose to start a residential lettings business.

The same rules apply to you as to people who do not try to deny that fact.

After a year of tenancy I contacted the management company because the gas safety certificate was about to expire. I asked them to contact a company I instructed myself the year before but they suggested I used one of their engineers that were slightly cheaper. I agreed not thinking much of it. After the inspection the engineer had put several "dangerous" signs on the boiler
...
Some of the issues were mentioned in the certificate from previous year but only as advisories.
...
I ended up calling the original company myself, they had no issues sending an engineer over within 2 days and he found no problems at all with the boiler, no carbon monoxide was leaking, and he issues the certificate. 

It is quite clear to me that the management company is working together with the gas engineer to get extra works done using scare tactics.

Or, perhaps, the issue is borderline - acceptable in one engineer's opinion, not acceptable in another's.

Which of the two is being more responsible? The one that leans towards safety, or the one that leans away from it?

My tenants were obviously worried about having scary signs on their boiler, as was I of course! I am now unsure what my next steps should be.

Given that the issues undoubtedly exist, since your preferred company flagged them last year, I'd be getting the work done.

I was referring to becoming an "accidental landlord" as I have seen this phrase used before for people who did not set out to become a landlord, I was just trying to to give a bit of a background not to say that different rules apply to me.

You think it is responsible to say carbon monoxide is leaking from a boiler when it is not? Clearly this is not about leaning or not leaning towards safety, it is flat out lying... 

I take it you had had a second independent engineer to visit and confirm this?

Or are you an expert sniffer of this odorless and colourless gas?

Did you read the post?? The issues I have is that I got a second opinion and they said there was no gas leaking. No need for this passive aggressive snarkiness.

You have had two reports done and choosing the believe the one that could kill someone because you don't like the cost of the first one.

No passive aggressiveness here, just merely pointing out facts.

Nevermind this statement by you without conclusive proof.:

It is quite clear to me that the management company is working together with the gas engineer to get extra works done using scare tactics.

SpiderLegs

When dealing with the potential death of people who I had a duty of care to, personally I would err on the side of caution rather than simply dismiss the first messenger to save a few quid.

you now have two conflicting results. The choice of an amateur landlord may be to pick the one which you prefer, whereas the professional landlord may decided that their safest route would be to get a third result and take it from there.

I’m not sure that legally there is any distinction between the liabilities of amateur, part-time, semi-pro, professional, veteran or just done-as-a-hobby landlords.

bargainbetty

Why all the snarkiness against the OP? 

The management company pushed him to use their engineer rather than one he knew and trusted, procrastinated against him getting a second opinion and the registered engineer he has previously used without issue has confirmed that his equipment meets safety standards. 

I'd be more inclined to suspect the promoted engineer pushing for inflated work than the engineer placing his professional reputation on the line by issuing a safety certificate. 

I am always less trusting of quotes from someone recommended when the person doing it has a vested interest in the matter. 

AdrianC

bargainbetty said:

The management company pushed him to use their engineer rather than one he knew and trusted

The other way of looking at that is that the OP asked the lettings company to arrange with an engineer they didn't know or trust, rather than the one they use regularly.

Or is using trusted trades a prerogative that only the OP has, and the company he pay to manage the property do not have?

The OP could have, of course - and eventually did - arranged with his preferred engineer himself.

I am always less trusting of quotes from someone recommended when the person doing it has a vested interest in the matter.

Why pay ~10% of gross rent to a management company at all if you don't implicitly trust them to do the job you've hired them to do... to manage the property?