DIY Installations

[nickso]

ok perhaps i wasnt clear then.

the OP is unsure how much work he can or cannot do on his central heating and still be insured. im confused as to what difference this makes in a wooden house but reading between the lines (dangerous perhaps) he seems to think they will not cover it if he installs it himself.....much like a car insurer is unlikely to insure an diy lpg install into a car. ( if anyone knows of one who does let me know cos mine bloody doesnt).

knowing how insurance companies like to make a meal of things i was merely pointing out he may have difficulty getting the insurance company to cover him if he did do the work himself.

my head hurts

 

[Softus]

This is getting more heated than my C/H.

Who's getting heated? We're just having a conversation here.

I pointed out that I was a qualified engineer to agree that not all DIYers are by definition moronic. As regards my insurance company I don't think they'd give a Damn if I flood the place as I haven't got flood insurance, but hey might take exception if didn't have the necessary gas work done by a specifically qualified person. Agreed?

No. I don't align with the concept that insurers get unhappy and/or and take exception to things. You're either indemnified or you aren't, and whether you are or aren't is a contractual matter, not a legislative one.

ok perhaps i wasnt clear then.

the OP is unsure how much work he can or cannot do on his central heating and still be insured.

Well we're all unsure, because we're not privy to the terms of his policy.

...will not cover it if he installs it himself.....much like a car insurer is unlikely to insure an diy lpg install into a car. ( if anyone knows of one who does let me know cos mine b****y doesnt).

It's this whole thing of 'likelihood' that I'm struggling with - insurers either cover things or they don't cover things. They word their policy documents exceedingly carefully and with abundant clarity, and there's never a shadow of a sliver of a whisper of any doubt what is and isn't covered, unless of course you don't read the policy.

knowing how insurance companies like to make a meal of things i was merely pointing out he may have difficulty getting the insurance company to cover him if he did do the work himself.

Do you mean that there's aren't many underwriters who will provide cover for that? Is that what you mean by "difficulty"?

 

[nickso]

This is getting more heated than my C/H.

Who's getting heated? We're just having a conversation here.

I pointed out that I was a qualified engineer to agree that not all DIYers are by definition moronic. As regards my insurance company I don't think they'd give a Damn if I flood the place as I haven't got flood insurance, but hey might take exception if didn't have the necessary gas work done by a specifically qualified person. Agreed?

No. I don't align with the concept that insurers get unhappy and/or and take exception to things. You're either indemnified or you aren't, and whether you are or aren't is a contractual matter, not a legislative one.

ok perhaps i wasnt clear then.

the OP is unsure how much work he can or cannot do on his central heating and still be insured.

Well we're all unsure, because we're not privy to the terms of his policy.

...will not cover it if he installs it himself.....much like a car insurer is unlikely to insure an diy lpg install into a car. ( if anyone knows of one who does let me know cos mine b****y doesnt).

It's this whole thing of 'likelihood' that I'm struggling with - insurers either cover things or they don't cover things. They word their policy documents exceedingly carefully and with abundant clarity, and there's never a shadow of a sliver of a whisper of any doubt what is and isn't covered, unless of course you don't read the policy.

knowing how insurance companies like to make a meal of things i was merely pointing out he may have difficulty getting the insurance company to cover him if he did do the work himself.

Do you mean that there's aren't many underwriters who will provide cover for that? Is that what you mean by "difficulty"?

im not heated either, its a conversation not an argument.

yes, likely and difficulty are my way of saying there may be less insurers willing to provide cover. im not saying they will give cover and then remove it at a later date for whatever reason they see fit. like you say, if you have read the terms of cover then its clear what is and isnt covered.

 

[Softus]

im not heated either, its a conversation not an argument.

yes, likely and difficulty are my way of saying there may be less insurers willing to provide cover. im not saying they will give cover and then remove it at a later date for whatever reason they see fit. like you say, if you have read the terms of cover then its clear what is and isnt covered.

In that case, nickso, I think we're in complete agreement.

 

[Sider]

nickso wrote:
...after what you said i realised it would make little difference as they wouldnt read it anyway



Softus wrote
I

disagree - it would make an enormous difference, because it would empower the HSE to prosecute any non-registered person who worked on a gas appliance.

How would the HSE be empowered to prosecute a non-registered person on the assumption that they didnt read the gas regs. ??.

 

[Softus]

I disagree - it would make an enormous difference, because it would empower the HSE to prosecute any non-registered person who worked on a gas appliance.

How would the HSE be empowered to prosecute a non-registered person on the assumption that they didnt read the gas regs. ??.

You've quoted something out of context, that I wrote in response to nickso's proposed change to the law - a proposal that he later rescinded.

In answer to your question, if the law prohibited a non-registered person, then the HSE would prosecute by virtue of their powers enacted by Parliament.

In answer to your postulate of a prosecution on the basis of someone not reading the legislation, that isn't what I meant. I was referring to my belief that people tend not to read the legislation, and also the fact that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in court.

So, if the law were to be changed in such a way as to make even competent DIY gas work illegal, and if a DIYer did some gas work, then he/she could still face a summary prosecution, even if that DIYer didn't know that it was illegal.