Flue inspection - new boiler install

[MeldrewsMate]

My point was that the OP would be prudent to have a hatch fitted so that the absence of a flue joint could be established easily during future servicing visits, avoiding complications from an over-zealous RGI....and at the extreme, avoiding an awkward situation in the future when GSR decides to upgrade 'can't inspect the whole length of flue/chimney' to ID.

 

[gas112]

My point was that the OP would be prudent to have a hatch fitted so that the absence of a flue joint could be established easily during future servicing visits, avoiding complications from an over-zealous RGI....and at the extreme, avoiding an awkward situation in the future when GSR decides to upgrade 'can't inspect the whole length of flue/chimney' to ID.

no you got it completly wrong that cadent etc could cut them off why not just say that instead of putting a pile of shyte ?

 

[FiremanT]

My point was that the OP would be prudent to have a hatch fitted so that the absence of a flue joint could be established easily during future servicing visits, avoiding complications from an over-zealous RGI....and at the extreme, avoiding an awkward situation in the future when GSR decides to upgrade 'can't inspect the whole length of flue/chimney' to ID.

Why would he ID it?

 

[MeldrewsMate]

Why would he ID it?

Because the unsafe situations procedure would possibly be changed in future.

 

[FiremanT]

Because the unsafe situations procedure would possibly be changed in future.

Seriously? ID will still mean IMMEDIATELY dangerous

 

[MeldrewsMate]

FT, I really don't get what you don't get, but you still feel the need to call my opinion shi-ite.
If what is today as AR is changed to ID in the future then the next RGI will have to cap off the supply to the flued appliance (the boiler). If the customer refuses he/she must report to the gas transporter, etc., etc..
Having an inspection hatch fitted now will eliminate that risk.

 

[FiremanT]

FT, I really don't get what you don't get, but you still feel the need to call my opinion shi-ite.
If what is today as AR is changed to ID in the future then the next RGI will have to cap off the supply to the flued appliance (the boiler). If the customer refuses he/she must report to the gas transporter, etc., etc..
Having an inspection hatch fitted now will eliminate that risk.

I don’t disagree that a hatch is a good idea, which is what I wrote earlier, and pointed out what I believe is the best way to approach it.

But no hatches cannot ever be ID as ID is immediately dangerous, and the absence of a hatch, with no other signs of distress or issues, can never be that.

 

[MeldrewsMate]

I don’t disagree that a hatch is a good idea, which is what I wrote earlier, and pointed out what I believe is the best way to approach it.

But no hatches cannot ever be ID as ID is immediately dangerous, and the absence of a hatch, with no other signs of distress or issues, can never be that.

Agreed, though with regs you can never say never; flues in voids being retrospectively introduced is a prime example.
My argument was that the over-zealous RGI, given changes in regs that none of us can predict, may assume that because he can't inspect all of the flue that there could be a joint hidden in an inaccessible place (despite the protestations of the customer). If, at that future date, the regs say that a flue that can't be inspected along its whole route is ID (rather than AR) then the customer is slightly shafted - he has to bash a hole in his boxed in section just to show that there's no fault with the flue and no joints.
It's the same argument that you've just used in another thread in the last 30 mins, ie 'for the sake of a tenner install the TRV to prevent any come-back'.

 

[FiremanT]

Agreed, though with regs you can never say never; flues in voids being retrospectively introduced is a prime example.
My argument was that the over-zealous RGI, given changes in regs that none of us can predict, may assume that because he can't inspect all of the flue that there could be a joint hidden in an inaccessible place (despite the protestations of the customer). If, at that future date, the regs say that a flue that can't be inspected along its whole route is ID (rather than AR) then the customer is slightly shafted - he has to bash a hole in his boxed in section just to show that there's no fault with the flue and no joints.
It's the same argument that you've just used in another thread in the last 30 mins, ie 'for the sake of a tenner install the TRV to prevent any come-back'.

And if you actually bothered to read my post, I pointed out that I supported the installation if a hatch in about the 3rd or 4th post!

But it can never be ID, without other indications to the contrary.

 

[martyndc88]

I am certain that there was a TB or an article in the gas rag about this, when extra long lengths became available, to the effect that you don't need to fit a hatch if there no joints. You had to note it somehow/somewhere, but don't recall the details, and I have not fitted boilers for years. But there is always the (excellent) chance of an RGI disagreeing further down the line.

Do you mean the 'exception' section of tb008?