On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:38:05 +0100, Tim Southerwood wrote:

Ed Sirett coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:41:57 +0100, Tim Southerwood wrote:



Should I consider it dangerous in its present condition, that is, might
the diaphram fail and **** gas everywhere, or are these things generally
failsafe?

Yes it's dangerous but not for the reason you state. That the gas is not
(fully) controlled is the issue.

Which I guess may potentially lead to the same outcome, say if the pilot
light blew out, then the main burner was fed via the faulty valve. Ouch,
now I'm scared. The gas goes off as soon as I get down there today.


I'm surprised the fitter I had didn't know any of this (I did ask) - he
seemed not very experienced, but that's another issue and I'm taking that
up with his employer...

This does seem surprising since controls such as these are a part of
the core syllabus of training for registered fitters.

I'm generally surprised. I'm a layman WRT gas, but:

When the fitter couldn't get the burner to fire, there was much head
scratching and wondering if the controller was supplying any power to the
boiler.

I suggested it should be as the controller was on, (manual call for heat and
neons lit up), and both the tank and hall thermostats were set to max.
Heating had been working days prior.

He then wondered aloud about the boiler thermostat. After about 10 minutes
of fiddling, I got bored with waiting for him to do what seemed obvious,
ie. go and get his multimeter and start testing. So I broke my policy of
non interference with professionals-at-work and went and got mine and
offered assistance, which was happily received.

Didn't take me long to prove to him that there was power to the boiler. I
then proved the boiler stat was working correctly then prove power to the
valve. It's not a complicated valve, 2 terminals L+N.

Despite this, every now and then he kept wondering if it was the programmer
or wiring or something else. I politely pointed out that if the valve was
powered, but not operating, then it was reasonable to deduce that the valve
may have a problem.

Ed: could you comment on one other thing, if you wouldn't mind, from a CORGI
POV:

First thing he asked for was the boiler instructions, which I found (this
isn't my house, so I was lucky there).

Unfortunately, the instructions for the fire were not included and I
couldn't find them.

He said he didn't know where to place the smoke match on that fire, so he
didn't appear to manage to complete a smoke test (the one effort he tried
had smoke coming back out into the room). I should add that his smoke test
of the main burner had clearly proven to me that the chimney was fine.

No one had previously asked me to ensure instructions were available, but
the company receptionist did say after the job, to me, that I should have
had the instructions available and it was a CORGI requirement. Is that true
or false? Would you expect a CORGI registered person to need instructions
to conduct a smoke test on a gas fire?

Skipping to the end, I rang up the company after he left, who I have had
excellent results with on two previous occasions, and disputed the time I
was charged as it seemed to me that this chap was wasting a lot of time
through lack of experience.

I'm now wondering, if he issued a landlord's cert (I paid for one, as I
thought it might be useful when selling the house) and the cert states the
installation is safe, but there is in fact a valve in a dangerous
condition, then I should raise this, first with the company, then with
CORGI.

How would you recommend I proceed? I initially reckoned that I've been
charged for time spent faffing, but I'm now thinking worse...

On a minor point, is it acceptable to perform leak tests with a mug of
customer supplied Fairy liquid+water? I thought they used specialist
liquids like Leek-Seek or similar? That's a minor point, but I'm trying to
form a picture here.


The guy may have never met a back boiler before if he was fairly young.
However identification of the function of these types of control is in the
core syllabus.

Somehow he is not up to the job.

Did he have a CORGI card?
Or was he simply working for a registered firm who were passing him off as
a registered fitter whilst he was in fact unqualified?
This is not unknown.

Far be it from me to drop the company in the doo-doo but I can entirely
sympathise that you have a grievance.

It is said that you can almost get an MOT for a car without an engine.
It is similar that you could get exam passes in gas fitting whilst having
almost no diagnostic skills. However knowing how a multifunction valve
works is in the core syllabus, leaving it in a dangerous state breaches a
stack of regs.

Even if I did not have the labels/forms to hand to condemn the boiler I
would at least have unscrewed the t/couple and/or disconnected the mains
connector and/or removed the fuse from the supply, aswell as informing you
not to use the boiler.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html