Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)


--
David

On 12/05/2016 09:26, Lobster wrote:
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)



Errr, how would the insurance company know? You are right to smell BS.

On 5/12/2016 11:40 AM, wrote:
On 12/05/2016 09:26, Lobster wrote:
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the
main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my
point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned
down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)



Errr, how would the insurance company know? You are right to smell BS.

Pretty hard to see how a boiler PCB failure could cause a serious fire, too.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:26:22 +0000 (UTC), Lobster
wrote:

Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one,

Probably the safest place to start an unintended fire in a house would
inside a boiler. Other than in the combustion chamber they have very
little which will burn and a steel case to contain anything which
could. A PCB failure, no matter how catastrophic, would not cause
anything more than smoke and sparks.

followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

Standard scaremongering by boiler fitters (they are not engineers) .
From a purely practical point of view there is very little visible
difference between a "new" and refurbished part and certainly none
after either had been in a fire. It is highly improbable that the
insurer would know the part was refurbished or would care. Fires are
not inspected that closely unless there is obvious evidence of arson.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)

No, insurance contracts used to be "contracts of utmost good faith",
the purchaser had to tell the insurance company anything the insurer
might consider to be relevant (but the insurer didn't have to say what
they might consider to be relevant). This created significant
problems as insurers would try to use non disclosure of unrelated
factors to cancel policies after claims were made.

This changed in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and
Representations) Act 2012, which came into force in April 2013.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/enacted

This replaced the traditional principle of utmost good faith in
consumer insurance contracts with a duty by the consumer to take
reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer.
Basically the insurer now has to ask specific questions and the
consumer has to answer them honesty but they no longer have a general
duty to try to guess what the insurer wanted. An insurer cannot void
the insurance contract because they were not told something they
didn't ask about.

In article ,
Lobster wrote:
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the
main PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a
brand new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point
in posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the
reconditioned part because he says that he's heard of somebody having
had a house fire caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance
claim being turned down due to the boiler not having been properly
repaired by a standard manufacturer-supplied part.

Most 'reconditioned' PCBs are repaired originals. So the fire could just
as likely caused by poor initial design/manufacture of the PCB than any
repair.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)

And just how would the insurer know a 'non maker part' had been fitted?

It's just a typical case of an unscrupulous 'engineer' spreading scare
stories to bump up his profits.

--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all the pcbs have
to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was dangerous then
the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb was in it.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Lobster" wrote in message
.75...
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

In the end the problem turned out to be something else; however my point
in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because he says that he's heard of somebody having had a house fire
caused by one, followed by the resulting insurance claim being turned down
due to the boiler not having been properly repaired by a standard
manufacturer-supplied part.

A fire is plausible I suppose, but as to the last bit I smell bull****.
Could it be any way legit for an insurer to reject a claim on the above
basis (unless presumably they had highly specific and restrictive small
print in their policy wording?)


--
David

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all the pcbs
have to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was
dangerous then the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb was in
it.

ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that over
a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular make,
but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts. It has to
be repaired like for like.

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all the pcbs
have to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was
dangerous then the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb was in
it.

ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that over
a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular make,
but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts. It has to
be repaired like for like.



That is exactly what he said.

--
Adam

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all the pcbs
have to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was
dangerous then the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb was in
it.

ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that over
a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular make,
but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts. It has to
be repaired like for like.

Who did he claim wouldn’t allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

On 13/05/2016 05:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all the pcbs
have to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was
dangerous then the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb was in
it.

ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that
over
a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular make,
but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts. It
has to
be repaired like for like.

Who did he claim wouldn’t allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

In order to get Gas Council (not sure if its still called this) approval
you have to submit a technical file of the boiler concerned.

Any change would invalidate that certification.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 13/05/2016 05:58, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all the pcbs
have to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was
dangerous then the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb was in
it.

ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that
over
a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular make,
but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts. It
has to
be repaired like for like.

Who did he claim wouldn’t allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

In order to get Gas Council (not sure if its still called this) approval
you have to submit a technical file of the boiler concerned.

Any change would invalidate that certification.

I just don’t believe that Geoff ever had to do anything of the sort.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 10:00:39 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:

I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all the pcbs
have to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was
dangerous then the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb was in
it.

ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that
over
a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular make,
but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts. It
has to
be repaired like for like.

Who did he claim wouldnt allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

In order to get Gas Council (not sure if its still called this) approval
you have to submit a technical file of the boiler concerned.

Any change would invalidate that certification.

do you need such approval for a used boiler?


NT

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that
over a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular
make, but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts.
It has to be repaired like for like.

Who did he claim wouldn’t allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

Anything is allowed in your third world country, Wodney?

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that
over a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular
make, but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts.
It has to be repaired like for like.

Who did he claim wouldn't allow that ? No one gets to not allow that.

Anything is allowed in your third world country ?

There you go with your flagrant dishonesty, as always.

On 5/12/2016 6:04 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd just not mention it and assume it was fine. After all all the pcbs
have to be the same whether repaired or new, if the circuit was
dangerous then the device would be dangerous no matter what pcb was in
it.

ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that over
a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular make,
but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts. It has to
be repaired like for like.



Actually the definition of "like for like" is not so straightforward. To
take a slightly silly example for convenience, you can get an unbranded
13A socket from B&Q to a given BS, or you can get an MK one meeting the
same BS. We all *know* that the MK one is likely to be better made. So
if the OEM uses unbranded, but Geoff uses MK he is actually making an
expert judgement being made that he has met the "like for like"
criterion, and has improved on the original. If it went to court, I am
sure he would not have much difficulty finding an FIEE to support his
decision, and no insurance company would in practice ever try to fight it.

In my industry (nuclear power) it is frequently necessary, when a piece
of now obsolete hardware is being replaced, to obtain a statement from a
professional engineer that the replacement is "like for like" to avoid
having to go back through all the system proving tests which might have
been carried out decades ago.

There is always an element of risk in such exercises. For example, going
back to 13 amp sockets, irrespective of the BS requirements the
flashover voltage of a B&Q socket *might* be greater than the MK one.
So, if the fault case involved overvoltage then the B&Q socket might
actually be better than the MK even though they both meet the same BS.
But by using a chartered engineer to review the case, you should
normally go past the "box ticking" stage and confirm whether the correct
selection criteria are being used.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that
over a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular
make, but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts.
It has to be repaired like for like.



Actually the definition of "like for like" is not so straightforward. To
take a slightly silly example for convenience, you can get an unbranded
13A socket from B&Q to a given BS, or you can get an MK one meeting the
same BS. We all *know* that the MK one is likely to be better made. So
if the OEM uses unbranded, but Geoff uses MK he is actually making an
expert judgement being made that he has met the "like for like"
criterion, and has improved on the original. If it went to court, I am
sure he would not have much difficulty finding an FIEE to support his
decision, and no insurance company would in practice ever try to fight
it.

Things sharing the same BS number can hardly be described as 'uprating'.
I'd also dispute that MK always produces a better product than others.

Uprating would be changing, say, a 5 amp relay known to give problems for
perhaps a 10 amp one. That sort of thing. Which might even involve
producing a new PCB.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
newshound wrote:
ISTR Geoff, who owns a company which repairs such things, saying that
over a period of time you get to know what things fail on a particular
make, but is not allowed to improve the design by using uprated parts.
It has to be repaired like for like.



Actually the definition of "like for like" is not so straightforward. To
take a slightly silly example for convenience, you can get an unbranded
13A socket from B&Q to a given BS, or you can get an MK one meeting the
same BS. We all *know* that the MK one is likely to be better made. So
if the OEM uses unbranded, but Geoff uses MK he is actually making an
expert judgement being made that he has met the "like for like"
criterion, and has improved on the original. If it went to court, I am
sure he would not have much difficulty finding an FIEE to support his
decision, and no insurance company would in practice ever try to fight
it.

Things sharing the same BS number can hardly be described as 'uprating'.
I'd also dispute that MK always produces a better product than others.

Uprating would be changing, say, a 5 amp relay known to give problems for
perhaps a 10 amp one. That sort of thing.

And there is no legal problem with doing that.

"Lobster" wrote in message
.75...
Recently had to have my dead boiler repaired. and was set to have the main
PCB replaced with a (self-sourced) reconditioned one rather than a brand
new one at an eye-watering price.

my point in
posting is that the engineer tried to warn me off using the reconditioned
part because


Ask Geoff CET but as far as im aware nobody makes pattern boiler PCBs they
are all repaired OEM boards using excitedly the same parts, so impossible
for any insurance inspection to notice, even in the unlikely event they
wanted to





-