Gas boiler vent regulations

Japers, I'd be inclined to agree with him. That's an immediate safety concern in my eyes alright.

House would have been signed off to current regulations of 20+ years ago. This has no bearing on the situation you are in now.

I don't work on gas so have no idea on the regulations but it sounds like you have found a good RGI guy. It's a safety issue so personally I'd get it done ASAP

The problem is it’s old and you might not be able to get flue extensions for it. The existing flue also has some corrosion, so it may not be possible to reliably extend it. That house could be 25-30 years old and it’s possibly the original boiler.

I’m not in the gas industry, and am not familiar with the finer details of the applicable regulations, be it the ones in force at the moment or which were applicable at the time of installation which is also of some relevance here.

On a practical level, I would have considerable difficulty with a service guy I engaged coming to service a boiler, doing the service and then flagging this at the last minute and disconnecting the gas as a result. It was open to him to raise the flue situation at the outset, when the customer will have an option as to proceed or not. The service guy doesn’t have a regulatory enforcement role in relation to gas safety, rather his responsibility is limited to not leaving an installation that he was working on in a dangerous condition. I would fear that some in this position may be inclined to act ultra vires for various reasons.

As regards the actual risk posed here- Is there an immediate risk of such magnitude that would support isolation of the applicance? I think that would need to be determined.

I see a soffit vent in close proximity to exhaust gasses that certainly could do with being sealed.

If it is a balanced flue, (it may not be) there may be some concern that the combustion air supply could become contaminated by flue gasses.

While there is clearly matters that need to be remedied, and the customer needs to be formally notified of such - would these constitute an immediate risk, such that the draconian action of disconnecting the customers gas is necessary? I am not quite convinced.

In many cases he might be significantly less likely to collect a fee now that he has turned the thing off! If that was his thought process he was hard off for the service fee if you ask me.

The Tridnet hotel case was a completely different set of circumstances whereby a contractor was installing a new Nat gas boiler which needed to be converted to run on LPG. It wasn’t correctly converted and was producing very large qualities of CO.

There is no suggestion of any excessive CO present in this case at all, rather that in the view of an individual installer the flue terminal should protrude further than it is currently given a deep soffit - and his unilateral decision to disconnect the supply. I’m questioning if that was a proportionate and reasonable action in the circumstances.

Surprised he wasn't very specific as to why he did shut off the boiler.

It is a completely different set of circumstances, but just highlighting the potential risks with boilers by sharing that link.

I wonder what reg/ guidance he was following by shutting it off.

You'd often see boiler flues in worse positions

I don’t see any hate being expressed. Merely that he may have been overzealous in his actions.

No one suggested he disconnect gas part way through the service? What was suggested is that it would have been reasonable that he advise the customer before he start that if he goes ahead and carries out the service he will be of the opinion that the flue termination renders the installation immediately dangerous and that at that point he believes he will have to disconnect the supply.

I haven’t expressed any view whatsoever in relation to the contractors entitlement to fees.

I am looking simply at his decision to isolate gas and whether such an action was warranted in the first instance and also whether he approached the matter with the level of transparency that I would expect of a contractor I engaged.

Clearly none of the previous service providers, nor any of those providing service to the remainder of the estate have reached the same conclusion that the flue location presents a perilous risk to life, so there is a legitimate question to be asked. Meanwhile the OP has no heat.

As regards RGI (in more general terms) the client has no contract with this body, and I don’t think making a complaint to them would offer any particular benefit. If there was wrongdoing identified on the part of a contractor, you would be pursuing him and his insurers.