Gas boiler vent regulations

Bykobap

Just got gas boiler serviced and technician is refusing to enable it untill the vent is brought up to regulation standards.

House is 20+ years old and boiler was serviced by various technicians.

Reasoning is it's directly below soffit vent, not UV resistant.

The whole estate has the same setup.

Needs to be extended, adjusted to regulations with original parts if available. If not available then the whole thing has to be replaced.

If it has to be done it is what it is, but seems a bit odd.

17159557371951108180458643094491.jpg

10-10-20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058352055/gas-boiler-vent-regulations

Japers, I'd be inclined to agree with him. That's an immediate safety concern in my eyes alright.

Bykobap

Ok. Who is to be invoiced for this? Homeowner or whomever signed off on it initially.

Do regulations change so abruptly?

If it's against regulations why is a technician not obligated to report the whole estate as H&S matter.

Neighbors had gas boilers replaced by certified technicians but vent remained as is.

Good technician gets a bad rep by following regulations it seems.

Sleeper12

House would have been signed off to current regulations of 20+ years ago. This has no bearing on the situation you are in now.

I don't work on gas so have no idea on the regulations but it sounds like you have found a good RGI guy. It's a safety issue so personally I'd get it done ASAP

standardg60

Just to be clear OP he serviced it first and then informed you he wouldn't enable it?

Bykobap

Correct

10-10-20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122150622#Comment_122150622

I understand the predicament that you're in, it's not ideal that the service was done and then the boiler locked-off, but it the situation happened otherwise then you might have ended up finding some other service person who overlooked the unsafe situation and left it as it is. That's a carbon-monoxide death-wish right there. And yes, rightly, the whole estate should be locked-off for this issue, but the boiler engineer can't carry out such enforcement beyond the boiler that he's effectively working on.

Anyway as I understand it, it's not a massive job to get this done right, I'd guess that it can be corrected for around 300 to 400 EUR.

Lenar3556

The problem is it’s old and you might not be able to get flue extensions for it. The existing flue also has some corrosion, so it may not be possible to reliably extend it. That house could be 25-30 years old and it’s possibly the original boiler.

I’m not in the gas industry, and am not familiar with the finer details of the applicable regulations, be it the ones in force at the moment or which were applicable at the time of installation which is also of some relevance here.

On a practical level, I would have considerable difficulty with a service guy I engaged coming to service a boiler, doing the service and then flagging this at the last minute and disconnecting the gas as a result. It was open to him to raise the flue situation at the outset, when the customer will have an option as to proceed or not. The service guy doesn’t have a regulatory enforcement role in relation to gas safety, rather his responsibility is limited to not leaving an installation that he was working on in a dangerous condition. I would fear that some in this position may be inclined to act ultra vires for various reasons.

As regards the actual risk posed here- Is there an immediate risk of such magnitude that would support isolation of the applicance? I think that would need to be determined.

I see a soffit vent in close proximity to exhaust gasses that certainly could do with being sealed.

If it is a balanced flue, (it may not be) there may be some concern that the combustion air supply could become contaminated by flue gasses.

While there is clearly matters that need to be remedied, and the customer needs to be formally notified of such - would these constitute an immediate risk, such that the draconian action of disconnecting the customers gas is necessary? I am not quite convinced.

dbas

If he flagged it at the outset, could he have been sent packing without any fee?

As annoying as it is, I'm glad he did it.

Carbon monoxide kills.

Hard to know what the solution is though as a layman like myself could look at is 813 and think the flue complies. The extra long eaves differs from assumptions in the screenshot (taken from is 813)

Screenshot_20240519-133501.png

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20296569.html

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122156522#Comment_122156522

In many cases he might be significantly less likely to collect a fee now that he has turned the thing off! If that was his thought process he was hard off for the service fee if you ask me.

The Tridnet hotel case was a completely different set of circumstances whereby a contractor was installing a new Nat gas boiler which needed to be converted to run on LPG. It wasn’t correctly converted and was producing very large qualities of CO.

There is no suggestion of any excessive CO present in this case at all, rather that in the view of an individual installer the flue terminal should protrude further than it is currently given a deep soffit - and his unilateral decision to disconnect the supply. I’m questioning if that was a proportionate and reasonable action in the circumstances.

greasepalm

Very interesting as my old Ravenheat shows a small length of venting like yours.

Only difference fitted about 13 odd years ago and has a long 2+ feet neck on it and now i see why.

Is that not expensive to get replaced with a longer flu version.

dbas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122156951#Comment_122156951

Surprised he wasn't very specific as to why he did shut off the boiler.

It is a completely different set of circumstances, but just highlighting the potential risks with boilers by sharing that link.

I wonder what reg/ guidance he was following by shutting it off.

You'd often see boiler flues in worse positions

Sleeper12

Personally I don't understand the hate in some of the comments.

Part of the gas boiler service is to assess the installation and confirm it meets the minimum standards. Why would anyone expect him to shut off the gas halfway through the service. If you fail your driving test halfway through the tester still completes the test. Doesn't bring you back early.

RGI engineer was engaged to preform a full service. He did this & possibly saved lives with his actions. I struggle to see how he is at fault in any way.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122158104#Comment_122158104

I don’t see any hate being expressed. Merely that he may have been overzealous in his actions.

No one suggested he disconnect gas part way through the service? What was suggested is that it would have been reasonable that he advise the customer before he start that if he goes ahead and carries out the service he will be of the opinion that the flue termination renders the installation immediately dangerous and that at that point he believes he will have to disconnect the supply.

Sleeper12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122158166#Comment_122158166

But he already made the house call to service the boiler. If homeowners change their mind then the regular call out fee (average €100 to €150) is still owed.

The safety check is part of the service. Service fee is payable one way or another.

This way only the agreed fee was paid, the boiler was fully serviced and the homeowners are in a safer home.

Are you suggesting that a RGI should make a house call free of charge to point out a life threatening fault?

If the RGI engineer was mistaken then homeowner have the RGI cert and can have the case investigated by RGI themselves

Engineer did his job and was paid the going rate. I truly don't see the issue here?

Lenar3556

I haven’t expressed any view whatsoever in relation to the contractors entitlement to fees.

I am looking simply at his decision to isolate gas and whether such an action was warranted in the first instance and also whether he approached the matter with the level of transparency that I would expect of a contractor I engaged.

Clearly none of the previous service providers, nor any of those providing service to the remainder of the estate have reached the same conclusion that the flue location presents a perilous risk to life, so there is a legitimate question to be asked. Meanwhile the OP has no heat.

As regards RGI (in more general terms) the client has no contract with this body, and I don’t think making a complaint to them would offer any particular benefit. If there was wrongdoing identified on the part of a contractor, you would be pursuing him and his insurers.

Sleeper12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122158283#Comment_122158283

Has any RGI engineers here questioned his actions?

I know it's the Internet and we are all experts but RGI engineers are trained in RGI regulations

As for not having a contract with the RGI themselves, well you do in as much as it is a RGI certificate. It is issued in their name. You can't complain to RGI about bad plumbing or engineers not following building regulations and connecting combi to the mains water supply BUT you can most certainly can get in touch with them with anything to do with the gas supply. Op can definitely challenge this with RGI. I don't believe op will be happy with the outcome because it sounds like the engineer followed the rules and did the right thing