A friend has just had her chimney lined for her( no more than 15kw) gas fire.
Liner type was 316 grade .. double skin .. 10m. The job took 3 hours.
Cost (N. Yorkshire) £822 inc vat .. guaranteed 10 yrs
Does anyone know if that is a fair price?
Mike P
sounds ok to me. Why did they use twin wall flue, not necessary for brick chimney and probably impossible do.
sounds ok to me
g'tee probly needs pinch of salt but hey ho
JimK
Mike P wibbled on Thursday 11 February 2010 16:46
My single skin but heavy SS stove liner came in a little (but not much) less for a similar length. The liner was stupidly expensive, the labour cost was such a small fraction of the overall cost that I really couldn't be bothered.
Seems OK.
liner alone would have been close to that price.
Thanx to all replies ...........
Mike 2
Describes a completely different, cheap, and usually not allowed, single skinned non stainless non insulated flexible product.
look again
A hideously expensive business altogether. Here in south east a grand is the ball park figure. Maybe if there were more HETAS practitioners, the price would drop.
You having reading problems again? Everything you've said apart from "flexible" is wrong.
"A twin skin multi fuel flexible chimney liner used for relining masonry chimney stacks. Manufactured in stainless steel, 316 grade inner, 316 grade outer."
That's the stuff they'll have used.
install one of those into an existing chimney...
he
plus presumably stove pipe(s) adaptors, top plate cowl, sand cement, new pot? etc?
JimK
Not insulated.
Been there, done that.
That's what they want mate. Its a requirement for post 1969 stacks . Bulding regs.
single skin stove liner? solid fuel? wassat then ? gi'us a link :>)
JimK
I just searched the online part J here
Cheers JimK
Can't quote chapter and verse on this, but there's something definitely wrong there. Maybe the stacks I know about are pre 1969 or something, or maybe your understanding of building regs and their application to existing chimneys is wrong (can you cite?), but lining with flexible liner is the norm. Insulation put outside it. The one you pointed to isn't intended for use inside a chimney, but as a nice chimney where there wasn't one there before.
(checks. Yes. According to that site, you are talking bollocks. OP was asking for a chimney liner - that's sold under the section "Chimney liners". You've pointed to standalone flues, not intended to be put inside existing chimneys.)
We had ours done fairly recently for a similar price.
JimK wibbled on Friday 12 February 2010 17:11
Yes (at least as far as I could see when cut), yes, que, and no I can't.
It was a heavy guage (therefore hopefully long lived) flexible SS liner installed by a HETAS person to meet all required regs.
Uninsulated and single skin - the brick stack had supported coal fires before, but the stove requires a smaller cross sectional area and the stack is probably on its last legs regarding not being leaky to flue gases - but it is still quite capable of withstanding the heat. Which is nice as some of the otherwise wasted heat comes out in other rooms via a warm breast (oooh er)
mmm could be wrong but i bet my troll finding fiver that that's actually a twin walled SS flexi liner - to look at they're not obviously twin walled til you inspect closer and see how they make it....
Cheers JimK
pre 1969 IIRC this is still allowed.
BCO threw it out in my case.
Maybe its 1970 then. Or 1968.
"FLEXIBLE FLUE LINER ====================
The circumstances in whch a flexible flue liener MAY be used in a chimney are, if:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.