Boiler moved and doesn't work now - asking for payment

angelasocks

Thanks Wiawsnb

Was looking at the new copper piping, think I understand now (aha moment). I don't think this cross in the pipes existed before. There are plastic brackets that secure the pipes to the wall. Except one bracket that doesn't have a pipe. Should be visible on the photo, can post a close up. As I don't have a photo before the "pipes are crossed" engineer came it's difficult to prove still.

If the original installer crossed the pipes why did he not uncross them rather than installing the new pipes under the boiler. (just thinking out loud)

I don't understand reverse flow, but will try and do a bit of research.

Thanks again

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82141873#Comment_82141873

As I don't have a photo before the "pipes are crossed" engineer came it's difficult to prove still.

There's an empty pipe clip in vertical line with the right of the two 'crossed pipes' which is on the same horizontal level as the other pipe clips. On a balance of probabilities, this almost certainly was fixed to the wall at the same time as the other pipe clips. It would have supported the vertical pipe (which is for the hot water out to the taps) which has now been re-routed to the right.

This doesn't prove that the pipes were crossed, because the original installer may have realised their error before finishing the connections, but it does tend to suggest the installer began work with the idea that the cold inlet and hot outlet pipes were in the opposite positions.

This could explain some of the 'were they'/'weren't they' discussion about the pipes being crossed. One scenario could be the installer realised their error and did the pipework as it now is. The second person who visited saw the 'crossed pipes' and reported that to the boss. The boss then correctly told you the pipes weren't 'crossed' - because the 'crossing' seen by the second person was actually the installer's fix. We will probably never know the truth though.

If the original installer crossed the pipes why did he not uncross them rather than installing the new pipes under the boiler. (just thinking out loud)

To do this so the crossover wouldn't be visible would have meant lifting the floorboards and altering the pipework under the floor. This is quite an involved job. It is also possible that there wasn't space, or some kind of obstruction, which meant it wasn't physically possible to do the crossover under the floor without considerably more work (for example re-routeing other unaffected pipes).

Doing the crossover as they have probably involved about 30 mins labour. Doing it under the floorboards would be at least an hour, and possibly 2 or 3 hours if there were complications. This assumes the carpet could be lifted easily and there was no furniture that would need moving out of the way.

One of the complications could be if the pipes go straight through the bedroom floor and ceiling of the room below, because in this scenario it is possible the original installation (in the bedroom) was done without lifting the bedroom floorboards.

There could be another option of swapping the pipes just below the boiler where it would be visible, but less intrusive, although how close this could be to the boiler is possibly something that would need checking with WB.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82141873#Comment_82141873

By 'reverse flow', we simply mean that the two pipes were connected to the boiler the wrong way around, and the water then flowed through the boiler in the wrong - reversed - direction.

The two pipes are: the cold mains water supply to the boiler (second pipe from the right), and a same-sized pipe (second copper pipe from the left) which takes the heated DHW (Domestic Hot Water) away from the boiler to supply all your hot taps.

The two pipes look identical, so the plumber who ran all these new pipes to the new location would have had to use a 'system' in order to not get them mixed up. This would almost certainly have been as simple as getting them in the right order in the first place, so that they came up from the floor to match the boiler's connections - nice straight lengths of copper pipe, as they should be.

This guy got it wrong.

Almost certainly (certainly…) the new shiny crossover pipes were not part of the new boiler installation, but were carried out by the second visiting engineer. You don't recall seeing these crossovers before this second visit, although you add that you cannot be certain as you did not take a photo at the time is was moved. However, it would have been truly staggering if the installing engineer had first got these two pipes in the correct order, but then - for some reason - decided they were wrong, so cut them and added these loops to swap flow! That would have been truly bonkers.

So, it is far more plausible that the installer did get them wrong, and fitted nice straight pipes going to the wrong place, and the boiler did not work correctly. The visiting 'repair' guy (I'll gloss over the blaming of the controller wiring) worked out the pipes were wrong, and sorted this by adding these (frankly unacceptable) changeover loops. Having done this, he then found it still didn't work as the flow switch was faulty, adding that it was likely down to the original reversed pipes.

The visiting 'repair' engineer stated, "the pipes were crossed", adding "it's not fixed as the flow control is broken, probably caused by the crossed pipes." I cannot see how he could determine that the flow switch was faulty until he'd sorted the 'reverse-flow' issue by adding these loops.

So, the flow was originally incorrect - reversed - and the repair guy corrected this.

If the flow switch has been damaged by the reverse flow (which surprises me, but hey - they say so), then it isn't a 'warranty' issue, but an installer-liability one, so it's incredibly naughty for this company to try and suggest otherwise, even questioning your service record. That leaves me feeling very uncomfortable about this company's motives and integrity, as well as their incompetence.

As I said, they should be falling over themselves in abject humility to resolve this for you, FOC.

(Some mysteries remain… How did the boiler seemingly produce some hot water when the flow was reversed?! Based on my GlowWorm boiler, tho', the flow switch is a simple turbine with a magnet and a hall switch - there is no reason I can think of why it would not operate in either direction. Perhaps they have a mechanical device to prevent reverse turning? No idea. But if the flow switch did operate the boiler to provide DHW, could the cold water get through the boiler the wrong way, and still be heated? No idea, but again I can see it happening, provided the diverter valve was allowing it.)

WIAWSNB

ASocks, I'd still like to know the model of that WiFi receiver near the boiler (that your own sparky initially wired up), and a pic of the actual controller.

angelasocks

Attached!!

WIAWSNB

Ok, so that is a pretty standard Wireless receiver which I presume is coupled with this programmer?

That receiver's wiring to the boiler is standard and conventional, and should provide no mystery or challenge to any sparky - and that includes yours. There is no way that I can think of that it could have been wired up incorrectly 3 years ago, with the CH side of your boiler working fine for this duration - up until the boiler was recently moved.

I wonder if the recent guys disconnected that receiver when they moved the boiler? If they did not, then the receiver unit would have dangled by that short cable whilst the boiler was removed, repositioned, and refitted. Quite possible they did keep it attached, especially if they taped it up against the casing to prevent it being damaged or getting in the way. Just as likely, tho', they disconnected it for convenience - a two-minute task.

When the repositioned boiler did not work, your installer, "Charged an extra £125 because he said it the fault was due to the electrical work done by the electrician, it was my own electrician and not theirs."

A few points; 1. the boiler remained faulty after this £125 rewiring bill was paid. 2. The installer was demonstrably incompetent as they plumbed the boiler incorrectly. 3. Even if they had to rewire that receiver, £125 is really pushing it for such a simple task, with everything - including the cable - already in situ.

You mentioned on the 30th that your sparky was, "calling up tomorrow, he's a very decent chap and family friend just to see if he can spot anything." Did this happen? If so, what did he say?

Boohoo

As with lots of users on here have said and long standing members also say it's not the price for a few mins work it's also fuel, vehicle running cost, tools insurances and other cost involved and also the persons wage.

As for the receiver I don't think it has any bearing on the boiler not working but if the receiver and controls are further away from the boiler s new position it could cause connection issues.

I have a Google nest unit and we were decorating the hall were it is and moved the unit to another room and it wouldn't work as lost connection to the router/boiler and we didn't know until we tried to turn heating on when we was out one night on our way home.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82142543#Comment_82142543

What we have been told is, the boiler worked fine since its original installation nearly 3 years ago. It was then moved to a new location, whereupon it failed to work. The company was called out to sort it, blamed incorrect wiring by the original sparky, and charged the OP for sorting this.

And it still didn't work properly.

We can see that the receiver is located adjacent to the boiler, so has not been repositioned or extended as part of their ineffectual 'fix'.

Although grainy, the pic also seems to show a flex cable that's been painted at some point. If so, it'll almost certainly be the original cable.

So, imo, it is highly unlikely that the OP's sparky wired this incorrectly 3 years ago; it was a straightforward task, and it worked fine for 3 years.

What these provably-incompetent engineers are claiming does not seem plausible to me. There are far more likely scenarios.

This is compounded by them attempting to suggest the warranty is invalid, even tho the new required repair - to the flow switch - is almost certainly not a warranty issue.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82142600#Comment_82142600

What we have been told is, the boiler worked fine since its original installation nearly 3 years ago. It was then moved to a new location, whereupon it failed to work. The company was called out to sort it, blamed incorrect wiring by the original sparky, and charged the OP for sorting this.

And it still didn't work properly.

We can see that the receiver is located adjacent to the boiler, so has not been repositioned or extended as part of their ineffectual 'fix'.

Although grainy, the pic also seems to show a flex cable that's been painted at some point. If so, it'll almost certainly be the original cable.

So, imo, it is highly unlikely that the OP's sparky wired this incorrectly 3 years ago; it was a straightforward task, and it worked fine for 3 years.

What these provably-incompetent engineers are claiming does not seem plausible to me. There are far more likely scenarios.

What I said in a previous post still stands - it is possible for there to be more than one issue contributing to an overall fault situation.

It is possible for central heating wiring to be done 'incorrectly' but the boiler to work Ok, until something else changes.

We simply don't know enough about what has happened to be sure, the best we can do is guess.

You cannot prove the engineers are incompetent, even though you hold that as an opinion.

This is compounded by them attempting to suggest the warranty is invalid, even tho the new required repair - to the flow switch - is almost certainly not a warranty issue.

WB, as manufacturers of the boiler, have accepted the flow sensor is faulty and have agreed a warranty repair. It isn't clear why you think you know better than them, but as said before, how would it be in the OP's best interests to dispute WB's decision? IMV it would be a lot better all round to just let that drop.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82142643#Comment_82142643

Would you like to suggest a plausible wiring alteration carried out by an electrician that would allow the boiler to function correctly for nearly three years, and not after it has been moved? That is what we are talking about, as that is what the company 'blamed' the initial non-functioning on.

We are not talking about poor wiring practice, such as using the earth wire when it shouldn't be - the company suggested no such thing, only that the non-functioning boiler was due to the OP's sparky carrying out a wiring error of some sort. So, can you suggest what this error could have been?

I cannot think of any, but - as you say - that does not mean it isn't 'possible'. But - to me - it's sooo implausible that it's covered by an 'almost certainly' not.

Do we know the plumbers have demonstrated incompetence? I think so. They got two pipes the wrong way around. Yes they did. Again, could you offer an alternative explanation for the loops? I cannot. Yes, that does not mean it isn't 'possible', but - again - I think that's comfortably covered by an 'almost certainly' not.

WB have accepted a warranty repair for the flow switch - that is decent of them. Do you reckon they know the whole story about the reversed flow? No. And would it make a difference? I suspect 'yes'. I don't think they know. So, in effect, WB are 'almost certainly' being taken advantage of by this company. The sort of connivance you have honourably railed against in the past.

Anything else?

Yes, the company's attempt to claim the OP was not covered under warranty. Why on earth would they suggest that? In order to bill her for the repair cost? Did they immediately say, "Not to worry - we will, of course, sort this as it's almost certainly due to our error."? Not that we've been told. And 'almost certainly' not.

And yet and yet, you are putting this OP in a defensive position where she can be wrong-footed, manipulated and exploited by a provably-incompetent company that is lacking in integrity. 'Almost certainly'.

I have not suggested the OP takes any action against anybody, at least not yet, but I'm trying to inform her as much as I can based on what we know, and what is 'almost certainly' the case.

I have asked the OP for more details, and received some. Following the company's repair, if they attempt to bill her further, then I will offer suggestions based on this and their 'reasoning'.

If, however, they fix the boiler for no additional cost and the OP is 'happy' with this outcome and the previous £125 bill, that's fine, and her call to make.