wall damage by gas man

[Melz]

Having had my boiler installation looked at by a building inspector, he advised me to get a structural engineer to look at the way the flue for the condensed water had been installed through a brick arch above a window. The structural engineer said that this had damaged the integrity of the arch and would have to be altered, which is going to cost me hundreds of pounds.

The heating engineer was Corgi registered, but does anyone know how much knowledge they are supposed to have about structural matters? The Corgi website has a complaints form, but it only covers gas safety problems, not other kinds of problems.

 

[Penners]

Whatever the complaints form on the website allows you to do, there's nothing to prevent you from writing to Corgi with details of the complaint.

Have you spoken to the installer about the problem? I doubt that Corgi would want to get involved until/unless you've given the installer the opportunity of putting right the problem.

And of course the threat of being reported to Corgi could be a strong incentive for him to do so.

 

[skier-hughes]

I would speak to the installer, don't make any threats at this stage as that'll put in the wrong mood straighaway, just say the building inspector noted this, asked me to get a structural engineer in and he's told me this isn't correct.

See what happens, be very polite and ask for his opinion on how he will put it right.

Of course, it may be that he was acting on your instructions to put the flue in here for this boiler and in the end it is your fault, it's hard to say without all of the facts.

We had to rebuild our arch, as the old owner ahd put the flue directly through it.

 

[Melz]

At the moment I have just told him that there's a problem and that we'd had someone out to look at it and make suggestions about a solution. I didn't apportion any blame as I just thought I'd see how he reacted. (He didn't say much but seemed angry)

I don't want to complain to Corgi about him at all. I checked their website to see if there was anything on there about their installers' duty to not damage your house. All their info made me think that they (and therefore their installers) don't take responsibility for anything but gas safety issues. What's difficult for me is to know whether it'd be unreasonable to ask him to foot the bill for the repair and re-siting of the flue.

My opinion is that anyone who has a job which involves making largish holes in house walls should know where to make them and where not to. I don't feel I should see it as solely my problem for saying "OK, go ahead" to the installation. I'm interested to know if other people agree or if they think I should have taken more responsibility to check out what was involved before going ahead.

 

[Schoolmarm]

When our oil boiler was moved outside I made a real fuss about how they intended to get through a stone wall.

 

[worms]

I had a lucky escape - asked the installer what the round pencil mark he had made on the gable wall was for. He reckoned he was going to make a hole there for the "balanced flue" for the Rayburn whereas I had specified a normal flue out the roof!

 

[skier-hughes]

What's difficult for me is to know whether it'd be unreasonable to ask him to foot the bill for the repair and re-siting of the flue.

My opinion is that anyone who has a job which involves making largish holes in house walls should know where to make them and where not to.

I don't feel I should see it as solely my problem for saying "OK, go ahead" to the installation.

I know I'm being all doom and gloom, but at least anything better than I portray will be good for you

I think you may struggle to get him to foot the bill.

He may argue that you should have consulted the structural engineer before asking him to cut a hole in your wall, as he is after all a gas fitter.
You could of course argue that if he is only a gas fitter he should have told you that he needed advice on whether to cut a hole in the wall or not.

What was in the contract?
We discussed this a good while ago and never reached a satisfactory solution if I recall, apart from trying to cross every t and dot every i.
What was written down for him to do, who told him to do what? Did he tell you that the flue must go here? Have you got this written down?

Otherwise right at the end, court case, you argue he said do this and he argues that you said do this and I'm afraid you get nowhere.

If you've got no written evidence, I would still get him round to look at it, civily discuss the problem and try for an amicable arrangement where maybe he does the labour for free and you buy any materials needed?

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm interested to know if other people agree or if they think I should have taken more responsibility to check out what was involved before going ahead.

While it's always a good idea to check out what's involved in any work people do on your house, ultimately any work that is contracted out must surely be the responsibility of the contractor. You cannot be reasonably expected to be an expert (or 'competent person') for any work you hire someone else to do - that's usually the very reason for contracting out the work. Presumably, you are not 'competent' to install the gas boiler so why should you be deemed to be competent to know about building structures?

I'd take the view that the contractor is solely responsible for all the work they do. To me, that's part of being a professional or 'competent' person - it's always important to know one's limitations and to bring in some expert help as and when necessary. For whatever reason he didn't do this and, based on what you've said, has left part of your house structurally unsound. That has to be his responsibility, unless he specifically discussed his intentions in detail and you specifically agreed.

How to proceed will depend entirely on the gas fitter. I'm sure he'll be angry at the prospect of having to do remedial work but I don't know if that'll be because he was trying it on and got found out or has made a genuine mistake and it's going to cost him to fix it. In practice, the reason doesn't really matter but I think you do need to give him every opportunity to correct the work.

Gentle conversations are probably the best approach but I would always follow them up in writing. I certainly wouldn't recommend any threats of legal action but I would be mindful that it could come to that so you need to start building a paper trail of everything you've said and done to give him a reasonable opportunity to fix the problem.

Ultimately, if the he won't fix the problem, you can claim remedial costs in court. You could get someone else to fix the problem and claim those costs (including the structural engineer costs) or you could get two or three quotations and claim the costs of the best one before having the work done. But I'd like to think it wouldn't come to that.

I once had an open coal fire installed and it filled the room with smoke. The fitter claimed it was a chimney problem but when I checked the installation instructions I found it had been installed wrongly. I asked the fitter to make the necessary changes but he refused. I said I would have to get someone else to do it and I would send him the bill. He said go ahead, he didn't care, he wouldn't pay it. I asked him to be reasonable as I didn't want to have to take legal action. He said he didn't care if I did, he still wouldn't have to pay because it was a chimney problem and I couldn't prove otherwise. When I sent him a copy of the county court summons claiming for the costs of correcting the installation to meet the manufacturers instructions - with no mention of smoke problems - he quickly capitulated and fixed it in a matter of days.

Which is a long-winded way of saying stick to indisputable facts. Your gas fitter has damaged a structural arch. You have a structural engineer's confirmation of this (because you are not an expert). The gas fitter must make, or pay for, repairs to restore the integrity of the structure - to the satisfaction of your structural engineer.

 

[Flyfisher]

Oops - looks like we clashed, but only 2 minutes in it. I'd have beaten you if I hadn't written so much!

 

[Gervase]

He might be angry, but as a tradesman he should have insurance to cover just such a cock-up (though he may well have invalidated it by being twerp enough to put a core drill through the arch in the first place).
If it was his decision to route the flue where it is, then it is entirely down to him to sort out the resultant structural problems. You may want to talk to a solicitor, though.

 

[Nemesis]

Check your home insurance covers you for legal disputes...

 

[BMcD]

Even if it was your decision to route the flue through the arch, you could argue that he should of advised against it. And unless you had that conversation and because you are not an expert gas installation engineer or structural engineer, then I would have thought that at least makes him culpable.

 

[skier-hughes]

Not really as he isn't a structural engineer either, it really does depend on what was said and written down.

 

[Andrew Bodenham]

Melz,

Can we clarify a couple of things please:

You say that the offending pipework is the "flue for the condensed water". Now, are we talking about the intake & exhaust flue (a pipe of about 6" diameter") or the condensate drain (a pipe of about 1" dia.)?

If it's the flue, and it terminates outside above your window then it may well fall foul of the building regs which specify minimum distances from apertures etc.

If it's just the condensate drain then we are dealing with a much smaller issue.

Any chance of inside & outside photos?

Presumably your window arch has not fallen down, so as structural problems go this may be more theoretical than practical. Which in no way excuses the gas fitter if he's screwed up.

 

[BMcD]

skier-hughes wrote:

Not really as he isn't a structural engineer either,

Doesn't matter, If he's been paid to do a job of work and in the course of it has damaged the building and didn't advise against the method suggested then in my view he's culpable.

Most builders aren't structural engineers but if they remove tie bars on your suggestion without giving advise and your house falls down, then you'd hold them responsible. "Just following orders" is not an excuse.

 

[Ian Bond]

http://www.worcester-bosch.co.uk/index.php?fuseaction=product.detail&con_id=127782&detail_id=167477

Sounds like many of the c*ckups I've inherited - lovely barrel vaulted masonry in the cellar b*gg*r*d up, joists cut through, boards wrecked, etc etc.

http://www.iankitching.me.uk/humour/hippo/gas.html

 

[Ian Bond]

Those minimum distances above a window opening (300mm, 1ft) do not appear to consider the need to avoid the lintels and any relieving arch above - purely to ensure that there's no nuisance caused by the flue exhaust.

Common sense would need to be used to avoid cutting through structural elements - I agree that pictures would be helpful here.

 

[skier-hughes]

skier-hughes wrote:

Not really as he isn't a structural engineer either,

Doesn't matter, If he's been paid to do a job of work and in the course of it has damaged the building and didn't advise against the method suggested then in my view he's culpable.

Most builders aren't structural engineers but if they remove tie bars on your suggestion without giving advise and your house falls down, then you'd hold them responsible. "Just following orders" is not an excuse.

I agree with what you are saying to a point, but as we don't have all the facts we can only summise as to what was said, pointed out written down etc. Maybe he did say, I'd not route the flue there, but here and was told I'd rather have it here for this reason blah di blah etc etc I've tried to give the worst possible view point, hopefully it will be this only and a satisfactory ending will occur.

Maybe in the fitters terms and conditions that Melz signed it says that Melz is responsible for ensuring all the structural aspects of the jobs are in Melz's hands and he should appoint a suitably qualified person to check the plans?
This would fit my scenario.
The fitter could of course have just come along and given a verbal quote and said I'll do the job, didn't submit any plans and that would fit yours.
There are of course also a million of other options which would also fit both :wink:

 

[BMcD]

skier-hughes wrote:

There are of course also a million of other options which would also fit both

Too true and it's always useful for a doom laden scenario to not only prepare you for the worst but to fill you with relief if it doesn't turn out quite that bad

 

[skier-hughes]

Absolutely