Gas Fire Flue Repair

[Carryon Regardless]

Some might remember the discussion on previous T's disturbing the flue in the loft of one of my semis.

The gas inspection failed the flu, didn't isolate the fire but hey hey, there is a small mount of exhaust escaping into the loft.

It 'must' be remedied no question.

The engineer stated that repair isn't permissible, replacement only allowed to also include a new ridge terminal.

The pre cast to ridge is connected by an aluminium flue, including an elbow.

Having now looked I can see the support at the elbow has been inadequate, this disturbed the elbow allows egress.

With support constructed, the flu rebuilt I see no reason why the flue can't operate as designed.

My thoughts are to line the male of the joints with a suitable mastic for additional integrity.

Aside from this I own next door, here he condemned a cooker, not for safety reasons, but because a hob and grill don't function.

Has the T's made me aware this would have been replaced, it will be tomorrow.

With remedial actions complete I would organise for a new inspection at both properties, with a different engineer.

Where am I being a naughty boy ?

[Melboy]

Obviously the flue must be gas tight and NO leakage of any kind permitted.

Repair is permitted to flue systems but only to a gas installers recommendation. I would doubt the use of "mastic" is permitted but there are gas tight sealing products available for you to purchase which will ensure a flue gas tight joint.

The important bit here is that you may carry out the work but the Gasesafe engineer MUST inspect the whole system and sign it off to a certificate for you.

It is possible that the ridge vent is not adequate but without eye-balling who can tell?

Regarding the cooker a certificate cannot be issued if any part of that gas cooker is not functioning correctly to original manufacture's standard so your Man was right to a non issue of certificate to you.

Mel.

[Carryon Regardless]

Thanks Mel, I anticipated your knowledge being useful here.

I've researched and seen a mastic specifically for flue sealing, somewhat similar to the 'fire cements' I imagine. It has a high temperature capability, although in the loft that should be less of an issue.

The ridges terminal has passed previous years as it would have this year without the escaping exhaust gases, discovered by a loft inspection and the effects of a smoke pellet.

I intend to go to the Plumb Centre and hopefully buy a suitable sealant.

My concern was over the comment that the flue could not be repaired, affecting a good repair should be possible here.

Is exchanging a cooker via disconnection at the bayonet considered to be breaking the gas integrity ?

Clearly at re-inspection, as I plan, would show any problem by the purge test, but there is the interim period.

[Richlist]

Please bare in mind that I know nothing about gas safety ......other than its an extremely good idea to have lots & lots of this gas safety thing..

So, putting my 'logic' hat on......

The engineer stated that repair isn't permissible, replacement only allowed to also include a new ridge terminal.

I would suggest its not about what you think or what you want or how you plan to effect a repair but more about the gas safety regulations and the need to comply with them in order to get a certificate.

I somehow think that the word 'permissible' quoted above might be a clue.

But hey.....I could be wrong......I'm someone who fits saw blades wrong !.

[Carryon Regardless]

Bearing in mind that this engineer didn't disable the gas fire that would cause the gases to escape from the flue,

and that I learn that the cooker in the same state has passed the 2 previous inspections,

it becomes reasonable to question the validity of his statements.

The legislation rules, more important is the safety. I have a view that legislation isn't always real world but designed in a comfy office environment.

The interpretation of legislation can cause massive grief and expensive litigations so the states courts can decide what the state really meant. For an engineer to occasionally not comprehend recent changes or misinterpret is no surprise.

A flue that has been designed and certified for purpose has been disturbed, there has never been any question regarding the terminal on this house or the row of neighbouring houses.

My logic says reinstate the flue to the way it was and it can do the job again. The terminal, of course, is as capable as it ever was.

However understandings evolve and new standards are introduced so assuming I can just 'put it right' may be incorrect. Before I go to the effort it would be good to understand if I'm missing something in my logic.

BTW your saw blade would last longer the wrong way round, and at least you tightened it. .

[Melboy]

Is exchanging a cooker via disconnection at the bayonet considered to be breaking the gas integrity ?

No.... you can do this from a quick disconnect connection.........There are some very grey rules on gas work and the biggest one is the "COMPETENT PERSON CLAUSE" which allows a person to do a certain amount of work and not be registered However, this that follows is where the grey area becomes clearer.

1. If you accept payment for undertaking unqualified gas work and it all goes wrong you WILL be prosecuted under the current gas safety laws by the Health & Safety Executive.

2. If you or anyone else carries out gas work and the result is damage by explosion or fire then your insurance company will not pay out UNLESS that gas work was carried out by a qualified and registered gas installer. This is why registered Gas installers have a minimum of £5,000,000 Public Liability Insurance to cover ALL eventualities because insurance companies would look to the Gasafe Engineer's insurance company to foot the bill.

Gas work can be dangerous as we all know hence no messing about......always check who is doing your work. All Gasafe engineers carry an ID card with their registration number on it and a quick online check will verify the details with Gasafe.

Just a brief note on Gas Law's.

Mel.

[Firera]

Fire Risk Assessments Limited specialise in helping businesses of all kinds and in all types of premises to ensure you are meeting the current legislation. Our unique blend of experience is tailored to provide an 'integrated total fire safety management service' in accordance with the regulations under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.<br style=color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); "><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">The Order states that the Responsible Person' (which if you are reading this, presume that is you) has to undertake aFire Risk Assessment, and if your organisation employs five or more people, you have to record the findings of your fire risk assessment. A Responsible Person is defined by the legislation as nearly always being the employer, where there is one, though it can include other individuals too. If you share a building with other organisations, the responsibility may be shared among several people. If you have responsibility for the other people in your organisation, it is safe to assume you will be the Responsible Person, even if others are too Over 70% of businesses involved in major fires either don't reopen or fail within three years. A fire is clearly a very difficult thing to recover from and something your business will definitely be a lot healthier without. We all have to carry out a Fire Risk Assessmentbecause of the law, but it is actually just giving a structure to what we should all be doing anyway in the best interests of our businesses.