gas fire's

[gasmarc]

Agree Kirkgas but if I could see catchment area was full of rubble I would ID it regardless of any other test , As Corgi would say I am the last engineer on the job

 

[kirkgas]

Agree Kirkgas but if I could see catchment area was full of rubble I would ID it regardless of any other test , As Corgi would say I am the last engineer on the job

i appreciate where you are coming from as you want to CYA and look after your customer, but it isnt ID if it passes a spillage test and has rubbish in the catchment space, if it passes a spillage its AR, best way to proceeed with this is to fully discuss it with customer tell them its AR and you are advising they dont use it but that you would prefer to ID and cap just to protect them because with customers permission you can act above the regs, but without it you run the risk of them trying to sue you

 

[gasmarc]

Spot on there , I had an issue where 2 customers went to hospital with suspected CO issue , Flat below had a boiler directly below their bed in a tiny unventilated room , I advised not to use until checked , Customer went mad as I turned gas of at boiler , Happy days

 

[desrob]

the fire in question had a air relief at bottom of fire were i could just make out the catchment was clear,but when your unsure and want clarification it does not help when a gas safe rep is going agains't what you are taught,nothing is ever straight forward,so will common sense prevail in this instance or as kirkgas teaches regs are there to be followed.

 

[bennygas]

I'm not for one minute suggesting that you folks have missed a trick here - i think it's just the way the conversation's gone I think, but just for the sake of completeness, let's not forget to mention that removal of a fire to examine the builder's opening is not only to establish that the catchment space is clear. Off the top of me head, it's also to ensure that the space is not undersized, or oversized (and clearances off the spigot), the suitability of materials present in this space, the integrity and presence of any seals/sealing material for any mantel or back panel, are there extraneous openings, does the gas supply pass through this space (if so, is it adequately protected? suitable fittings used etc), not to mention being able to develop an informed opinion as to the type and state of the flue? Also, if the appliance is stuck back - what was used? Chances are if some muppets gone and stuck a fire back, he used silicone or no nails - if so, does the material itself pose a risk (re:ignition or crumbling away to nothing only to leak flue gases). Not being funny, but with all these if's and maybe's - how can it be anything but AR. Sounds to me like that inspector wants shaggin' for saying that fire was ok.

 

[GrahamM]

I'm not for one minute suggesting that you folks have missed a trick here - i think it's just the way the conversation's gone I think, but just for the sake of completeness, let's not forget to mention that removal of a fire to examine the builder's opening is not only to establish that the catchment space is clear. Off the top of me head, it's also to ensure that the space is not undersized, or oversized (and clearances off the spigot), the suitability of materials present in this space, the integrity and presence of any seals/sealing material for any mantel or back panel, are there extraneous openings, does the gas supply pass through this space (if so, is it adequately protected? suitable fittings used etc), not to mention being able to develop an informed opinion as to the type and state of the flue? Also, if the appliance is stuck back - what was used? Chances are if some muppets gone and stuck a fire back, he used silicone or no nails - if so, does the material itself pose a risk (re:ignition or crumbling away to nothing only to leak flue gases). Not being funny, but with all these if's and maybe's - how can it be anything but AR. Sounds to me like that inspector wants shaggin' for saying that fire was ok.

Firstly, a number of posters have mentioned the Firebox MUST be removed to inspect catchment area etc. so I don't think anything missed here.

Secondly, as mentioned the inspector was completely wrong here and should be inspected himself.

Thirdly, it is "AR" as long as all safety checks are good, as Kirk mentioned. Does not matter how many "if's and maybes".

If it "maybe" unsafe it is AR. If it is unsafe it is ID!

 

[bennygas]

alright graham, sorry mate, bit new to all this forum stuff. to be honest, after i posted, i trawled back to the start of the thread and had a look and kicked myself - figured there was potential to look a bit of a berk but didn't know how to amend what I'd said, or whether that's even possible. you're quite right it was mentioned - memory of a goldfish, me.

my mention of "how can it be anything but AR" was looking at AR as being the least severe categorisation of the installation - you could probably argue AR solely on the basis of use of a non-proprietary material for fixing/sealing the appliance back. I'm quite aware of GIUSP and the basis for the definition of each classification; I wasn't for one minute suggesting that AR was where it ended. With so many unresolved if's and maybe's there's so much potential for an unidentified unsafe situation to exist, quite possibly constituting an ID situation, but it is down to being able to evidence that categorisation and that's what the inspector should've been there to establish. - and that's the point of my post, and probably most of the other posts on here - frustration at the inspector's apparent lack of diligence - to walk away saying it's ok. bewilderment persists. but then that's quite normal between my ears.

 

[Syty]

Hello,
Flueless appliances incorporate the latest in gas fire technology, and do not require any flue or chimney. Instead, the combustion gasses pass through a catalytic converter mounted inside the appliance, which converts the poisonous carbon monoxide to harmless carbon dioxide and water vapour. Flueless appliances require nothing more than a gas supply, together with minimum room size and ventilation requirements. You can visit Plummer for more info.
Thank you.

Hmmmm. Spammer?

 

[RPG 80]

Hmmmm. Spammer?

Yup

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mcniven]

who would trust a guy to turn up with PLUMMER on the van lOL

 

[mcniven]

i bet PLUMMER looks like this

 

[RPG 80]

If that's him what's he using to type with?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[bennygas]

i thought it was just me that was in here littering the place with pointless comments. obviously not.