Immediately dangerous work in house just completed on

ejeavons

canaldumidi said:

Must admit I sympathise. Despite my explanation earlier about surveyors not being gas-trained, I fully understand that many a buyer would be reassured by the combination of survey and Building Regs certification. Where the gas installations appear newish/good condition etc, as with electrics, a separate inspection is often skipped by many, there being no 'warning' indications.

The parallel with a car salesman is inappripriate. The surveyor IS more akin to a mechanic than a salesman. Perhaps a better analogy would be a VW-trained mechanic inspecting a Bentley (no, OK, not perfect, but better!)

Thank you 

And that gave me a giggle at least 😆

More than anything we just want it to be safe. Would hate to think as well that whoever did the work could be doing this elsewhere and it could lead to some serious harm if not found. 

Section62

ejeavons said:

Sorry if I have inadvertently equated gas safe engineer with builder or BC officer anywhere - have the utmost respect for trades, am therefore even more disappointed in the work that has come to light here. 

No need to apologise, I don't think any of the comparative comments made here have been critical of any of the professions/trades involved.

The point (and why I'd both agree and disagree with canaldumidi about the appropriateness of the comparision) is that what we are taking about is the suitability of any professional to comment about something which is outside their area of expertise.

A car salesperson will probably have a better understanding of the workings of cars than the average person, but their expertise in assessing the mechanical condition of a car is not as good as a mechanics.  Even that statement is a horrible generalisation as not all 'mechanics' have the same skillset.  A diesel fuel systems mechanic (/technician) might know squit about about suspension and running gear. So to get a good quality opinion about the condition of a car needs either the right kind of mechanic (aka 'old school'), or a range of opinions gathered from different mechanics.

Which is kind of where we are at on the subject of building condition/safety assessments.

ejeavons said:

Ok so, genuine question here as I am not a trade - who was responsible for ensuring the extension at the property was safe - whether that be gas, electric, or structurally? Because from what I’m learning now it seems that is no one? Theoretically could I submit plans to BC that don’t mention where meters/flue are or that they will be changed in a building project, builder comes and does work, isn’t a gas safe engineer and then BC come and sign off the work, not knowing there is something gas related to look at, and here we are? Am I being dim or is that a gaping hole? 

As I’ve said, fully appreciate the position of the surveyor and expectations on them or not - it’s the builder and BC that I’m really confused/frustrated about. 

Bottom line?  The property owner is the one with that responsibility.  If they cannot discharge that responsibility themselves (and most cannot) then they need to employ people with the correct expertise to advise them.

A building control officer has a combined role of advisor and enforcer.  To the property owner they are firstly a paid advisor - checking that the work is being done in accordance with the regulations.  The scope of that is limited though - they are only authorised to be involved in those aspects of a project the regulations apply to.

Of all of them, the builder is the odd one out.  Only builders require no job-related qualifications or training whatsoever and yet still expect to find employment with ease.  And even so, members of the public are willing to put blind faith in a (randomly discovered) builder to carry out safety-critical work on their homes, and to act as their advisors on fiendishly complicated legislation and regulations.

There are a lot of brilliant builders out there, with near encyclopedic levels of knowledge.  There are also plenty of cowboys.

So yes, there's a huge gaping hole.  But an incredibly difficult one to fill.

Unless all work was notifiable and required sign-off by suitably qualified individuals, situations like the one you are in will always occur.

ejeavons

Section62 said:

ejeavons said:

Sorry if I have inadvertently equated gas safe engineer with builder or BC officer anywhere - have the utmost respect for trades, am therefore even more disappointed in the work that has come to light here. 

No need to apologise, I don't think any of the comparative comments made here have been critical of any of the professions/trades involved.

The point (and why I'd both agree and disagree with canaldumidi about the appropriateness of the comparision) is that what we are taking about is the suitability of any professional to comment about something which is outside their area of expertise.

A car salesperson will probably have a better understanding of the workings of cars than the average person, but their expertise in assessing the mechanical condition of a car is not as good as a mechanics.  Even that statement is a horrible generalisation as not all 'mechanics' have the same skillset.  A diesel fuel systems mechanic (/technician) might know squit about about suspension and running gear. So to get a good quality opinion about the condition of a car needs either the right kind of mechanic (aka 'old school'), or a range of opinions gathered from different mechanics.

Which is kind of where we are at on the subject of building condition/safety assessments.

ejeavons said:

Ok so, genuine question here as I am not a trade - who was responsible for ensuring the extension at the property was safe - whether that be gas, electric, or structurally? Because from what I’m learning now it seems that is no one? Theoretically could I submit plans to BC that don’t mention where meters/flue are or that they will be changed in a building project, builder comes and does work, isn’t a gas safe engineer and then BC come and sign off the work, not knowing there is something gas related to look at, and here we are? Am I being dim or is that a gaping hole? 

As I’ve said, fully appreciate the position of the surveyor and expectations on them or not - it’s the builder and BC that I’m really confused/frustrated about. 

Bottom line?  The property owner is the one with that responsibility.  If they cannot discharge that responsibility themselves (and most cannot) then they need to employ people with the correct expertise to advise them.

A building control officer has a combined role of advisor and enforcer.  To the property owner they are firstly a paid advisor - checking that the work is being done in accordance with the regulations.  The scope of that is limited though - they are only authorised to be involved in those aspects of a project the regulations apply to.

Of all of them, the builder is the odd one out.  Only builders require no job-related qualifications or training whatsoever and yet still expect to find employment with ease.  And even so, members of the public are willing to put blind faith in a (randomly discovered) builder to carry out safety-critical work on their homes, and to act as their advisors on fiendishly complicated legislation and regulations.

There are a lot of brilliant builders out there, with near encyclopedic levels of knowledge.  There are also plenty of cowboys.

So yes, there's a huge gaping hole.  But an incredibly difficult one to fill.

Unless all work was notifiable and required sign-off by suitably qualified individuals, situations like the one you are in will always occur.

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond so fully, it’s really appreciated 

theoretica

ejeavons said:

Yes cadent said meters inside of house isn’t the issue, it’s that the extension has been built around it and to do that, they’ve basically knocked a big hole in the side of what is now the wall, leaving the cavity exposed to the meter, which I understand is dangerous should the attached pipes leak into the cavity itself. You can also see the floor underneath it. It’s a big mess. 

It sounds like the issue is that nothing was actually 'done' to the gas - so a gas safe engineer was never involved and gas simply didn't appear in the works that were being reported to building control.  So the works that were looked at were fine - and no one looked at the thing next to them that wasn't being moved (but should have been) because it didn't enter into consideration because it wasn't being touched...  Nobody knew it needed a gas expert because nobody was enough of a gas expert to realise.

What a tangle!

Nichelette

I work for a gas transporter (not Cadet) and used to have to deal with these situations often. When the build over is inherited we will relocate the inlet at no charge once proof is received, but the outlet and anything else is down to the owner to remedy. We'd do the minimum to make safe, so not move it to opposite side of house etc. I'd check with Cadent to see what their policy is. 

ejeavons

theoretica said:

ejeavons said:

Yes cadent said meters inside of house isn’t the issue, it’s that the extension has been built around it and to do that, they’ve basically knocked a big hole in the side of what is now the wall, leaving the cavity exposed to the meter, which I understand is dangerous should the attached pipes leak into the cavity itself. You can also see the floor underneath it. It’s a big mess. 

It sounds like the issue is that nothing was actually 'done' to the gas - so a gas safe engineer was never involved and gas simply didn't appear in the works that were being reported to building control.  So the works that were looked at were fine - and no one looked at the thing next to them that wasn't being moved (but should have been) because it didn't enter into consideration because it wasn't being touched...  Nobody knew it needed a gas expert because nobody was enough of a gas expert to realise.

What a tangle!

Yes I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there 

ejeavons

Nichelette said:

I work for a gas transporter (not Cadet) and used to have to deal with these situations often. When the build over is inherited we will relocate the inlet at no charge once proof is received, but the outlet and anything else is down to the owner to remedy. We'd do the minimum to make safe, so not move it to opposite side of house etc. I'd check with Cadent to see what their policy is. 

Thank you. The people from Cadent did explain they’re likely to do this too, with the gas safe engineer who comes to sort the flue probably also sorting the piping to the meter relocation. Fingers crossed it can all be sorted either way!

ejeavons

In case anyone was on tenterhooks for an update  Cadent are unfortunately charging us to move the meter (c.£700) as well as the £700 we have already had to pay to right the flue.  We will then have to pay for a Gas Safe Engineer to do the pipework from the boiler to the new meter location, as well as an electrician to add the earth bonding cable - cost of both of these still tbc.  Very expensive first month in the property, but I guess just glad we caught it before anyone was hurt.  

Thank you all again for your advice and kind words

Chandler85

You can't earth bond to a plastic gas pipe, well you can but nothing would happen...  So there should be no need (assuming your actual heating is all earthed already, as the copper pipes act as the circuit and earth everything attached.  Although I suppose if this bit was botched, might be worth checking everything.

The lesson learned is that before you buy a house it is always good to locate the meters, I'm slightly surprised the surveyor didn't mention he couldn't find it.