This is why we will not endorse DIY gas work! | General DIY Plumbing Forum | Plumbers Forums
  • Welcome to PlumbersTalk.net

    Welcome to Plumbers' Talk | The new domain for UKPF / Plumbers Forums. Login with your existing details they should all work fine. Please checkout the PT Updates Forum

Welcome to the forum. Although you can post in any forum, the USA forum is here in case of local regs or laws

American Visitor?

Hey friend, we're detecting that you're an American visitor and want to thank you for coming to PlumbersTalk.net - Here is a link to the American Plumbing Forum. Though if you post in any other forum from your computer / phone it'll be marked with a little american flag so that other users can help from your neck of the woods. We hope this helps. And thanks once again.

Discuss This is why we will not endorse DIY gas work! in the General DIY Plumbing Forum area at Plumbers Forums

D

Dotty

Read the article especially HSE Inspectors view

A Lincolnshire plumber has been prosecuted for carrying out illegal gas work after a couple suffered severe burns in a major explosion at their home.

Daniel George Hickling, trading as DGH Plumbing and Heating, was hired by the couple to reduce the height of two redundant LPG gas pipes in an old kitchen, which was being converted into a living room at their Nettleton home.

After he left the property on 21 July 2011 the couple realised the gas supply hadn’t been switched back on so the householder went to the LPG tank in the garden and reset the valve to restore the supply. A short while later the couple smelled gas and went to investigate. When the householder was trying to find the source of the leak it ignited.

Lincolnshire Crown Court heard on 24 May that the explosion was so severe it blew out nearly all the ground floor windows and two walls of the property had to be supported to prevent them from collapsing.

The male occupant suffered severe burns to his hands, forearm and scalp and had to have a skin graft on his hands from which he is still recovering. His wife suffered serious burns to her lower legs and feet.
The couple had to live in a caravan for a year while the house was repaired.

A Health & Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident found Hickling had never been registered with Gas Safe and was not qualified or competent to carry out the work. It is believed he damaged one of the pipes while excavating part of the floor around the pipe, puncturing a hole in it.

Hickling, 39, of Main Street, Howsham, admitted breaching Regulations 3(1), 3(3) and 5(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. He was given an 11-month prison sentence suspended for two years, ordered to carry out 300 hours of unpaid work and pay costs of £2,000.

HSE inspector David Butter said: "Anybody who carries out work on gas pipes or appliances without being on the Gas Safe Register is breaking the law. Daniel Hickling endangered the lives of this couple as soon as he began work. They are extremely lucky to have survived.”
 
A question for you?

Take a situation say as in this case where there were redundant pipes. Not dead legs for instance. Actual pipes that were once for gas but now have no connection either end. A complete redundant pipe run.

Do you have to be gas safe to remove it even though it is no longer gas pipe. It is just pipe without purpose?

I know what you'll say for safety's sake but regarding to actual law?
 
The punishment is no where near servere enough in my opinion. 2 grand fine?! I got a 450 quid fine for speeding! The law is an bum. It costs more than that to work as a qualified engineer. Really pee's me off. And I'm sure I do more than 300 hours unpaid work each year too!
 
So if its had gas in it. You shouldn't touch it? Is that what your saying?

If it's a pipe it's a pipe. If it's a pipe with water in it's a pipe with water in. If it's a pipe that used to carry gas but is no longer connected to a gas supply then it's a redundant pipe, meaning it's just a pipe. If it's just a pipe then do what you want with it.
 
If it's a pipe it's a pipe. If it's a pipe with water in it's a pipe with water in. If it's a pipe that used to carry gas but is no longer connected to a gas supply then it's a redundant pipe, meaning it's just a pipe. If it's just a pipe then do what you want with it.

Mate if I'm on a job and I can see both ends are not connected and it doesn't tee off anywhere than that pipe is mine. I just want to hear what people say about it
 
That's what Gas Safe is saying. If you can see the pipe along it's length and you're positive it's isolated I personally don't see why it's not just pipework.

With how much certainty a non-registered person can establish whether it carries gas I can't say. If they're certain it's redundant pipework, cut into it and find it's live they've just worked on a gas fitting and created an open end. As with all things we have to work to the lowest common denominator. I know plenty of people I wouldn't leave near pipework I even suspect is gas.
 
If it's a pipe it's a pipe. If it's a pipe with water in it's a pipe with water in. If it's a pipe that used to carry gas but is no longer connected to a gas supply then it's a redundant pipe, meaning it's just a pipe. If it's just a pipe then do what you want with it.

Definitely? Because GS have told me differently.
I have no problems being set right, but it's dangerous making definitive statements based on opinion, gut feeling and "common knowledge" which is what this thread is highlighting.
 
Definitely? Because GS have told me differently.
I have no problems being set right, but it's dangerous making definitive statements based on opinion, gut feeling and "common knowledge" which is what this thread is highlighting.

Well if it's not connected to a gas supply it's not a gas pipe.
 
Except when it's previously carried gas.
Like I say i'm happy to be proven wrong but i've been told as such by gas safe, it's not a matter of opinion and it's confusing for people reading this.

Maybe someone else could ring for guidance tomorrow? We all know they're not totally consistent.
 
good thing is he has been found guilty of carrying out illegal work, now the couple can sue the bum off him for damages through the civil courts which will hurt him some more, his insurers wont pay for sure.
 
Let's say we had a house which was ready for demolition. The gas carcass has been disconnected from the meter and all gas appliances. Who can rip the scrap pipework out?
 
Let's say we had a house which was ready for demolition. The gas carcass has been disconnected from the meter and all gas appliances. Who can rip the scrap pipework out?

In that case if the gas carcass has been disconnected from the meter and wont/cant be reconnected or reused there's no possibility that removing the pipework could cause any kind of leak. It's a moot point in that case, all the safety implications are irrelevant.
Whoever gets there first I suppose :)

Also pipework isn't just pipework when you can't re-purpose it. You couldn't run water through an old gas carcass as it will have deposits of copper sulphide on the wall. Likewise I wouldn't connect a gas run to pipework containing calcium deposits.
 

"Was hired to reduce the height of two redundant LPG gas pipes."

"It is believed he damaged one of the pipes while excavating part of the floor around the pipe, puncturing a hole in it."
So he reduced the height of two redundant gas pipes and accidently punctured a different pipe?
 
The topic of this thread is about this prosecution. It really hacks me off, that this guy got away with such a punitive sentence, when he wilfully carried out gas work and caused so much injury, damage and heart break for the victims. On the other point, a gas fitting is something which is designed with the purpose or intention of conveying gas. So the great point everyone is putting over is, "when does a horse stop being a horse?".
 
good thing is he has been found guilty of carrying out illegal work, now the couple can sue the bum off him for damages through the civil courts which will hurt him some more, his insurers wont pay for sure.
I doubt if the elderly couple have the money to pursue him through the courts but, hopefully, they are well insured and their insurers will pursue him. However as he is probably a "man of straw", i.e no assets, even the insurers may give up.

Do you think he is even insured?
 

Similar plumbing topics

    • Funny
My approach to everyone is that there looks to...
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Question
Thanks, both. Good tips. Will give them a go.
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Question
E.Vessel Recharging Looking good and even...
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Question
The closer it ( the pumped accumulator) is to...
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top