This week Transco called at a tenants property to change the gas meter.
Having done so, the engineer tested the installation and found leakage
upstream of the meter.
The supply is (1) recent copper to a CH boiler upstairs and (2) is branched
off to a gas cooker and gas fire on the ground floor.
The ground floor supply is via steel pipe and is quite aged. It is also
buried beneath concrete floors.
The engineer isolated all the usage points (CH, cooker and fire) and
diagnosed that the problem was in the underfloor steel pipe. He refused to
reconnect the gas supply; and quite rightly so, I imagine.
A corgi registered engineer has renewed the supply to the cooker and fire.
Upon completion testing he found that there was still leakage.
This was tracked down and found to be within the fire. This has been capped
off and there is no longer any problem. As the fire is also aged it will
have to be replaced.
I had the engineer test the integrity of the of the steel pipework. This
proved to be 100% sound.
The renewal of the gas pipework has cost me £750. I will also have the cost
of renewing the fire.
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I have
any chance of making some claim against them?

Thanks

Nick

Well as you said he isolated all the usage points and there was a drop. It is most likely that to isolate the cooker he unplugged the bayonette. These fittings are classic for leaking, to do a proper tightness test on the pipework the fitting would have to be replaced with a cap, or at least tested with ldf, wherein it would be most likely proved to blow small bubbles.

If you have the same one get it checked out of curiosity, i.e. remove cooker flexible connection spray ldf inside and get down on your back with a torch, look for small bubbles slowly forming. Get it changed by a competent person.

Of course it's always best to run gas pipe exposed, better still externally, so it has been a good exercise to eliminate concrete engulfed gas pipe. It's OK in the regs dependent on certain criteria being met, but it's still not sensible to run any pipe inside concrete.

As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I have
any chance of making some claim against them?

IANAL (or gas fitter)

Why ?

They left your premises in a safe condition after having diagnosed a
problem - they were there to replace the meter and restore gas supply if
safe to do so.

The leaking pipework and/or appliances are *your* responsibility to
maintain.

From an electrical point of view, we leave people switched off if there's
any doubt about the safety of an installation, but we are not expected to
do a full test of the the consumers' installation, nor are most staff
equipped to do such a test.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I
have
any chance of making some claim against them?

IANAL (or gas fitter)

Why ?

They left your premises in a safe condition after having diagnosed a
problem - they were there to replace the meter and restore gas supply if
safe to do so.

The leaking pipework and/or appliances are *your* responsibility to
maintain.

From an electrical point of view, we leave people switched off if there's
any doubt about the safety of an installation, but we are not expected to
do a full test of the the consumers' installation, nor are most staff
equipped to do such a test.

--
They did indeed leave the premises in a safe condition. This without the
benefit of gas cooking or heating facilities due to the engineers' faulty
diagnosis.
Obviously these facilities had to be restored sans delai, and I have
probably paid ott for this to be done (48 hours from start to end).
The Transco engineer volunteered the info that I have given and he
obviously was equipped to carry out any testing required. Whether the
diagnosis was in the engineers' remit or not, I do not know; but I will
find out.

Are you with an electricity supply company or a private contractor?

Thanks

Nick.

Are you with an electricity supply company or a private contractor?

`lectric

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I
have
any chance of making some claim against them?

IANAL (or gas fitter)

Why ?

They left your premises in a safe condition after having diagnosed a
problem - they were there to replace the meter and restore gas supply if
safe to do so.

The leaking pipework and/or appliances are *your* responsibility to
maintain.

From an electrical point of view, we leave people switched off if
there's
any doubt about the safety of an installation, but we are not expected
to
do a full test of the the consumers' installation, nor are most staff
equipped to do such a test.

--
They did indeed leave the premises in a safe condition. This without the
benefit of gas cooking or heating facilities due to the engineers' faulty
diagnosis.
Obviously these facilities had to be restored sans delai, and I have
probably paid ott for this to be done (48 hours from start to end).
The Transco engineer volunteered the info that I have given and he
obviously was equipped to carry out any testing required. Whether the
diagnosis was in the engineers' remit or not, I do not know; but I will
find out.

Are you with an electricity supply company or a private contractor?

Does it matter ? Transco did the only thing safe to do and I'm sure your
neighbours are glad of this even if you're a bit ****ed off over the cost.

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I
have
any chance of making some claim against them?

IANAL (or gas fitter)

Why ?

They left your premises in a safe condition after having diagnosed a
problem - they were there to replace the meter and restore gas supply
if
safe to do so.

The leaking pipework and/or appliances are *your* responsibility to
maintain.

From an electrical point of view, we leave people switched off if
there's
any doubt about the safety of an installation, but we are not expected
to
do a full test of the the consumers' installation, nor are most staff
equipped to do such a test.

--
They did indeed leave the premises in a safe condition. This without the
benefit of gas cooking or heating facilities due to the engineers' faulty
diagnosis.
Obviously these facilities had to be restored sans delai, and I have
probably paid ott for this to be done (48 hours from start to end).
The Transco engineer volunteered the info that I have given and he
obviously was equipped to carry out any testing required. Whether the
diagnosis was in the engineers' remit or not, I do not know; but I will
find out.

Are you with an electricity supply company or a private contractor?

Does it matter ? Transco did the only thing safe to do and I'm sure your
neighbours are glad of this even if you're a bit ****ed off over the cost.


In''t good old days the emergency service/BG visit guy would spend a brief
while finding and fixing small faults such as disturbed connection to
restrictor elbows and the like. It seems nowadays all they do is cut off the
gas and depart.
However I can visualise a scenario such as yours where a drop test fails and
having isolated various bits and bobs still fails, a remark such as "its
probably leaking under the floor" being made and picked up on by tenant for
relaying to you. I cannot see the emergency guy cutting and isolating the
said bit of pipe to test it individually so your own guy should have tested
and located the problem himself. If you told him the under floor pipe needed
replacing then he did what you asked and on completion of that bit he then
found a problem which he fixed.
I never trust the thoughts of others and arriving on a site with your
circumstances I would have looked to see if the underfloor pipe could be/had
been seperately tested, however its not unknown for a landlord to ask for a
pipe to be rerouted from under floor simply as preparation for a future job
such as kitchen refit/alteration etc.
In short - its tough but **** happens

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I have
any chance of making some claim against them?

IANAL (or gas fitter)

Why ?

They left your premises in a safe condition after having diagnosed a
problem - they were there to replace the meter and restore gas supply if
safe to do so.

The leaking pipework and/or appliances are *your* responsibility to
maintain.

From an electrical point of view, we leave people switched off if there's
any doubt about the safety of an installation, but we are not expected to
do a full test of the the consumers' installation, nor are most staff
equipped to do such a test.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

Colin who do you work for ??

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Nick wrote:

This week Transco called at a tenants property to change the gas
meter. Having done so, the engineer tested the installation and found
leakage upstream of the meter.
The supply is (1) recent copper to a CH boiler upstairs and (2) is
branched off to a gas cooker and gas fire on the ground floor.
The ground floor supply is via steel pipe and is quite aged. It is
also buried beneath concrete floors.
The engineer isolated all the usage points (CH, cooker and fire) and
diagnosed that the problem was in the underfloor steel pipe. He
refused to reconnect the gas supply; and quite rightly so, I imagine.
A corgi registered engineer has renewed the supply to the cooker and
fire. Upon completion testing he found that there was still leakage.
This was tracked down and found to be within the fire. This has been
capped off and there is no longer any problem. As the fire is also
aged it will have to be replaced.
I had the engineer test the integrity of the of the steel pipework.
This proved to be 100% sound.
The renewal of the gas pipework has cost me £750. I will also have
the cost of renewing the fire.
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I
have any chance of making some claim against them?

Thanks

Nick

Did Transco leave you with a written report certifying that the below-floor
pipework was leaky? If not, you haven't got a prayer!
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

Did Transco leave you with a written report certifying that the
below-floor
pipework was leaky? If not, you haven't got a prayer!
--
Cheers,
Set Square

Thanks Set Square,

I doubt that any report was left, but I will check.
Probably another dead duck!
All the best
Nick.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 16:46:02 -0000, "Nick"
strung together this:

As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I have
any chance of making some claim against them?

If someone called me to replace a faulty cable as someone had
disconnected the whole installation from the meter the first thing I
would do would be to test it for myself. If I hadn't then I would
expect to not get paid if it turned out that it wasn't actually the
cable but a faulty appliance, or have an argument on my hands at the
very least.

I would have a word with the fitter who replaced the pipe, he should
have tested it first rather than relying on what you and the meter
fitter said, which came from you as second hand information.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

"Lurch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 16:46:02 -0000, "Nick"
strung together this:

As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I have
any chance of making some claim against them?

If someone called me to replace a faulty cable as someone had
disconnected the whole installation from the meter the first thing I
would do would be to test it for myself. If I hadn't then I would
expect to not get paid if it turned out that it wasn't actually the
cable but a faulty appliance, or have an argument on my hands at the
very least.

I would have a word with the fitter who replaced the pipe, he should
have tested it first rather than relying on what you and the meter
fitter said, which came from you as second hand information.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Ditto this comment, you never trust someone elses diagnosis.

Steve Dawson

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:46:02 +0000, Nick wrote:

This week Transco called at a tenants property to change the gas meter.
Having done so, the engineer tested the installation and found leakage
upstream of the meter.
The supply is (1) recent copper to a CH boiler upstairs and (2) is branched
off to a gas cooker and gas fire on the ground floor.
The ground floor supply is via steel pipe and is quite aged. It is also
buried beneath concrete floors.
The engineer isolated all the usage points (CH, cooker and fire) and
diagnosed that the problem was in the underfloor steel pipe. He refused to
reconnect the gas supply; and quite rightly so, I imagine.
A corgi registered engineer has renewed the supply to the cooker and fire.
Upon completion testing he found that there was still leakage.
This was tracked down and found to be within the fire. This has been capped
off and there is no longer any problem. As the fire is also aged it will
have to be replaced.
I had the engineer test the integrity of the of the steel pipework. This
proved to be 100% sound.
The renewal of the gas pipework has cost me £750. I will also have the cost
of renewing the fire.
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I have
any chance of making some claim against them?

Thanks

Nick

Nope. The Transco guy went beyond his duties to attempt to isolate the
fault to a specific appliance. The test he did could only have detected a
fault in an appliance AFTER the cut for each appliance.

The only way you could have avoided the extra expense would have been to
ask you fitter to carefully check and find the leak before embarking on
the expensive repipe work. However it would have been a gamble because if
the leak was identified as being in the floor you would have lost all the
extra time the fitter took to find it.







--
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

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:46:02 +0000, Nick wrote:

This week Transco called at a tenants property to change the gas meter.
Having done so, the engineer tested the installation and found leakage
upstream of the meter.
The supply is (1) recent copper to a CH boiler upstairs and (2) is
branched
off to a gas cooker and gas fire on the ground floor.
The ground floor supply is via steel pipe and is quite aged. It is also
buried beneath concrete floors.
The engineer isolated all the usage points (CH, cooker and fire) and
diagnosed that the problem was in the underfloor steel pipe. He refused
to
reconnect the gas supply; and quite rightly so, I imagine.
A corgi registered engineer has renewed the supply to the cooker and
fire.
Upon completion testing he found that there was still leakage.
This was tracked down and found to be within the fire. This has been
capped
off and there is no longer any problem. As the fire is also aged it will
have to be replaced.
I had the engineer test the integrity of the of the steel pipework. This
proved to be 100% sound.
The renewal of the gas pipework has cost me £750. I will also have the
cost
of renewing the fire.
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I have
any chance of making some claim against them?

Thanks

Nick

Nope. The Transco guy went beyond his duties to attempt to isolate the
fault to a specific appliance.

Where did the OP say that? I thought it was the CORGI fitter that
eventually discovered the fire was leaking.

The test he did could only have detected a
fault in an appliance AFTER the cut for each appliance.

Surely Transco only proved there was a fault in the carcasing BEFORE the
cut-off for each appliance?

I'm guessing the story isn't quite accurate probably due to some
misunderstanding somewhere. If the steel pipework WAS sound then the fire
isolation MUST have been passing. Reluctant to believe that Transco made
such a
basic misdiagnosis as implied.

Jim A

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:49:39 +0000, Jim Alexander wrote:


"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:46:02 +0000, Nick wrote:

This week Transco called at a tenants property to change the gas meter.
Having done so, the engineer tested the installation and found leakage
upstream of the meter.
The supply is (1) recent copper to a CH boiler upstairs and (2) is
branched
off to a gas cooker and gas fire on the ground floor.
The ground floor supply is via steel pipe and is quite aged. It is also
buried beneath concrete floors.
The engineer isolated all the usage points (CH, cooker and fire) and
diagnosed that the problem was in the underfloor steel pipe. He refused
to
reconnect the gas supply; and quite rightly so, I imagine.
A corgi registered engineer has renewed the supply to the cooker and
fire.
Upon completion testing he found that there was still leakage.
This was tracked down and found to be within the fire. This has been
capped
off and there is no longer any problem. As the fire is also aged it will
have to be replaced.
I had the engineer test the integrity of the of the steel pipework. This
proved to be 100% sound.
The renewal of the gas pipework has cost me £750. I will also have the
cost
of renewing the fire.
As the steel pipework was not, as diagnosed by Transco, faulty: do I have
any chance of making some claim against them?

Thanks

Nick

Nope. The Transco guy went beyond his duties to attempt to isolate the
fault to a specific appliance.

Where did the OP say that? I thought it was the CORGI fitter that
eventually discovered the fire was leaking.

I read and still read the OPs as 'the engineer' who diagnosed the leak as
in the floor pipe as the Transco operative.

The paragraph starting "A corgi registered engineer" introduces the fitter
employed by the Landlord.


The test he did could only have detected a
fault in an appliance AFTER the cut for each appliance.

Surely Transco only proved there was a fault in the carcasing BEFORE the
cut-off for each appliance?

Yes but presumably there is more to the carcasing than simply what is in
the floor.


I'm guessing the story isn't quite accurate probably due to some
misunderstanding somewhere. If the steel pipework WAS sound then the fire
isolation MUST have been passing. Reluctant to believe that Transco made
such a
basic misdiagnosis as implied.

It seems to me that the fault lay between the floor pipes and the isolator
for the fire (likely a restrictor elbow).


--
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