"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:11:40 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Only if there is no other alternative for a condensing boiler. With long
flue lengths and condensate pumps, it would be difficult not to find a
suitable location.

Elsewhere a back boiler can be replace with a non-condensing
unit provided the only locations would require long flues or pumps etc.

I find that ridiculous. Long flue lengths act against a condenser.
Regular
and condensers both can have very long flues. Long flue length should
not
act against a condensing boiler at all.

The scoring indicates that they are accounting for inconvenience and
cost.

Moving the boiler to a different room involves new plumbing of water
and gas connections.

A long flue (in some makes) adds a lot to the cost of materials, plus
there may not be a convenient route to run it, plus making good after
installation........


As most plumber are ignorant of boilers. Most will probably not know that
some boilers, like the Keston, can have extremely long flue lengths.


That's something for the vendors to address.

Having said that, I have a feeling that this exemption thing has the
potential for abuse - i.e. if the customer doesnt want a condensing
boiler or the non-condensing one remains cheaper etc. the form gets
filled in. The wording is sufficiently loose in that the
householder only has to say that a possible location is not suitable
and the fitter signs off the paper. Nobody's going to pick it up
AFAICS.

Until few condensing boilers are sold and the Ministry starts to see why.