Baxi Bermuda BBU HE Any experiences?

gas4you wrote: »

Theyvarecoverstepping te mark. If it was safe when originally fitted and met te regulations in force in that day, then it does not have to meet current regs.

Get another engineer in to certify it and if needed fix the gas valve.

If it passes a tightness test when all switched off, then tere is nothing wrong with the fire gas valve.

Sounds like tey are trying to get an unneeded boiler change out of you and your mother:mad:

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I will try that in the New Year - if I can get hold of a gas engineer. :undecided

gas4you wrote: »

They are overstepping the mark. If it was safe when originally fitted and met the regulations in force in that day, then it does not have to meet current regs.

Get another engineer in to certify it and if needed fix the gas valve.

If it passes a tightness test when all switched off, then there is nothing wrong with the fire gas valve.

Sounds like they are trying to get an unneeded boiler change out of you and your mother:mad:

I think you hit the nail on the head there Gas4.

This bit is interesting "Nor was he happy that the ventilation was sufficient under current regulations. He subsequently disabled the fire, although the boiler is still operational. " , he appeared worried about the ventilation of the fire alone, yet the boiler derives its ventilation from the same room !

Unless he was considering the total ventilation requirements with both boiler and fire running at max.

An academic observation on my part, due to as you said, it complied at the time of manufacture and fitting and is not retrospective.

I think the " Not to current standards" statement made by the gas engineer is a bit of belt and braces to cover himself in this increasing litigious HSE society we find ourselves in, though I applaud anyone erring on the cautious side with gas itself and combustion products.

It would be interesting if he issued an (ID), (AR) or (NCS) notice.

SYNERGY wrote: »

With respect this, " You have my personal guarantee that if a pilot light was left on unlit,you would never be in a hazardous position" is a stupid and potentially dangerous statement to make to others !

Though you personally would obviously feel comfortable with an unlit pilot in your property, it is beyond your remit to suggest it is OK for others.

Any gas leak however small, that is what this unlit pilot constitutes, is a hazard, there are no grey areas whatsoever where gas leaks are concerned.

I know your thinking behind your statement, though obviously flawed, is that there will possibly be sufficient flow of air through the room to dilute the gas and prevent the accumulation of an explosive mixture, what if there isn't and an explosion occurred, would your personal guarantee still stand ? :eek:

My guarantee is that it is impossible for a pilot light to generate a concentration of 5% gas in air in any space in which a cooker might be fitted.

An unlit pilot is not a gas leak..it is simply a pilot which has not been lit or has blown out.

If it were a pilot light which was guarded by a flame monitoring device which has failed to function and fail safe,then i would say it constituted a gas leak.

I stand by my statement.

DJT1953 wrote: »

I have been renting out my late Mother's bungalow for a year which has been fitted with a Baxi Bermuda 552 back boiler and wooden fire front since the early 70's. When it came to remew the Landlord's Certificate the engineer wasn't happy that the fire gas valve didn't have a positive 'off' position and that the fire pilot light didn't have a flame failure device. Nor was he happy that the ventilation was sufficient under current regulations. He subsequently disabled the fire, although the boiler is still operational. The company concerned would not consider re-instating the fire if I increased the ventilation as, in their opinion, the fire isn't suitable for a rented accommodation.

This sounds to me like a particular syndrome that is far to prevelent, being an engineer with no experience of older appliance?

The fire valve and pilot issue is not a reason to condemn the appliance, it may well be NCR, but as has been stated was to the standard current at the time of manufacture and installation!

However the ventillation isue whilst being NCR as the other faults outlined, it is and does make the appliance, fire front and boiler being considered 1 appliance, AR & ID as the ventillation regs are not retrospective for reasons that ventillation is now calculated differently and for reasons of changed lifestyles and building design!
The criteria for the changes were the use of such as fitted carpets and double glazing which have discarded the old criteria of adventitious ventillation being included in previous ventillation requirement calculations!
These days the ventillation requirement is purely calculated on appliance ratings and has to be upgraded to conform to current standards!
It would appear that the engineer is being hypocritical in the way he has turned off the fire as it would appear he has considered that the ventillation may be sufficient for the boiler output, but not for the combined output as he should have, and also used the NRC issues of the fire as added reason?
I would also querywhy this has not been an issue before, if it has been a CP12 renewal?


[/QUOTE] My guarantee is that it is impossible for a pilot light to generate a concentration of 5% gas in air in any space in which a cooker might be fitted.
An unlit pilot is not a gas leak..it is simply a pilot which has not been lit or has blown out.
If it were a pilot light which was guarded by a flame monitoring device which has failed to function and fail safe,then i would say it constituted a gas leak.
I stand by my statement.
[/QUOTE]

I'm with SYNERGY on this matter and I would also ask C_Mababejive to consider what GAS SAFE would regard his commet as???

"4%" which is the LEL that has to be considered as the ratio of gas required to create an explosive mixture may be a small % of a matchbox, but maybe he should ask the occupants of RONAN POINT how they would consider his comment???
He should also ask himself if he did a Gas Soundness test he would pass it as sound if he found a leakage of the volume to be expected from an pilot jet???
He should again also consider if his guarantee would stand up if litigation were to be instigated as the "Impossible" became "BOOM"

This is yet again someone placing an opinion before the safety of life and property?
Whilst there is always going to be differing opinion on technical issues, there should not be on issues of GAS SAFETY, the guidelines are clear!!!

poppyriley wrote: »

What Does Ncr Mean is It Suppose To be a Ncs

Possibly a typo, it should be NCS, Not to Current Standards, which is the lower of the gas defect notifications.

It doesn't imply there is an actual risk, there isn't, if there was a risk an AR ( At Risk) or ID (Immediately Dangerous) notice should be issued, simply that it doesn't comply with present criteria for a similar 'modern' appliance, or present criteria for ventilation and flueing for an appliance of similar output.

It can still be used, within the original manufacturers fitting and use criteria, though it would be prudent to update to present specifications where possible.