Building regulations for boiler installation

[Reestit Mutton]

Hi,

As some of you may recall, I am currently trying to get Vokera to see sense over a deficient heat exchanger in our boiler.

They are currently telling me that if I do not have a complete benchmark installation commissioning and service record log book then it's pointless me getting the installer to fill it in retrospectively - something the developer is more than happy to do.

In particular, I have been told that it is a requirement under part L of the building regulations for this card to be filled in at the point of installation and commissioning.

I have a strong suspicion that they are simply using this card as a device to shirk on their responsibilities and guidance notes that I've found (from the heating and hot water information council) simply state that completion of the card merely "demonstrates that the work complies with the requirements of the appropriate building regulations". Surely if the developer has been granted the appropriate warrants for the development and has the appropriate information on record to enable him to fill in this card retrospectively, then Vokera should have nothing to moan about.

Do you think it is reasonable for me to reject Vokera's assertion out of hand? If so, what should I be quoting to let them know that I know they are trying to hoodwink me, without actually calling them liars and inflaming the situation?

cheers, RM

[Ed Sirett]

Pity it was not done right to begin with. If you have the book and the developer has signed it off (it should be done by the original commisioning fitter) then I can't see the problem. Obviously Vokera are looking for any excuse not to have to deliver on the warranty. As for forging it...

Absolutely, not to have done so was quite wrong. In fact you might pay Vokera for the repair and then claim from the developer damages for not having filled in the card.

The card is a simple and effective means by which the manufacturer can check that the commissioning was done correctly (assuming the card was not signed fraudulently), and that regular servicing has been competantly done annually.

If you've got the card and it's filled in and signed there is no way they should renege; call their bluff.

It is pretty much impossible to fake the info on the card since you would need the following.

Name, trading name, address, signature, CORGI number and CORGI card serial number of the commissioning fitter.

Also the actual commssioning data: description of the controls, gas rates, water temps, gas pressures, type of 'flushant' type of inhibitor etc.

I think it would be hard for the developer to get the card filled in retrospectively unless the fitter actually still works for them.

[Reestit Mutton]

Nope - we aren't planning on forging it - merely retrospectively copying the data from his archives onto it.

This was an old property that was renovated rather than a new one.

Unfortunately it's buyer beware in many ways when purchasing property in Scotland, unless the developer explicitly provides some form of warranty.

True, but I get the impression that they are using it as a device to allow them to just say no.

However, would the law allow for an alternative form of record keeping as long as it contained the appropriate information?...or is the card the ONLY record that is valid in this instance.

That was what I was thinking. I just wanted to know the "legal" position visavis retrospectively (but honestly) filling in the card, before going down this avenue.

Well, the developer doesn't need to even be bothered with us but he's been very accommodating and, for some reason, we even noted the fitter's name on a scrap of paper when we bought the place - that should help in getting this card eventually signed off.

But, yes...our plan is to legitimately obtain the necessary records retrospectively.

cheers, RM

[Hugo Nebula]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:46:45 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named Reestit Mutton randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Your sig says you're in Edinburgh; is this correct? Part L (Conservation of Fuel & Power) is part of the English (& Welsh) Building Regulations. There may be a similar provision in the Scottish regulations.

The requirement in England is that "these systems should be commissioned to make reasonably certain they can operate efficiently for the purposes of the conservation of fuel and power", and one way (but not the only way) of demonstrating that is to fill in the Benchmark 'ticket'.

[Reestit Mutton]

Thanks Hugo.

Just the type of information I was looking for, and with enough detail for me to bluff the manufacturer into believeing that I know my onions so that they don't treat me like a fool and try and fob me off with bluff and arrogance.

Thanks must also go to Ed. for his useful advice on tha matter.

RM

[Ed Sirett]

number of the

IANAL but my guess is that if the manufacturer failed to honour the warranty then you might have a claim against them. They can make a reasonable demand for evidence that the installation, commissioning and servicing have been done and done right, the benchmark log book being by far the easiest way for this to be shown. I doubt they could demand that only the log book could be use a proof but getting proof in any other form would take as much work as filing in the log book.

I lawyer may tell us this is total balls. However the small claim court is all about amateurs arguing whats fair and reasonable.

As always with disputes it is worth working out just how much total capitulation will cost. Thus to be sure that you don't spend many pounds of you own money to get only a few pounds of money which is rightfully yours.

-- Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter. The FAQ for uk.diy is at

Gas fitting FAQ CH FAQ

[Reestit Mutton]

Yup - my thoughts exactly.

They've already made it clear to me that they will not accept liability on this, but their decision was clearly based on a number of false assumptions and inaccurate information about my situation and it was also partly based on the fact that my benchmark card had not been filled in - despite me telling them that I was in the process of obtaining all the necessary commissioning information from the developer (who himself may actually have a filled in card).

So, as you can see, whilst I can challenge their false assumptions about my situation, I was at a loss wrt defending the lack of information in the benchmark document unless I could be sure that an alternative source of information (i.e. direct from my developer) was acceptable under building regulations.

So far, you and one other person have been very helpful in making it clear that the benchmark document is not the only valid means of meeting the regulations and, in fact, the regulations that were quoted at me by Vokera were relevant only in England and Wales.

As a result, I've taken the opportunity to look up the relevant part of the Scottish Building Regulations (part J) and I fully intend to correct them on their mistake to give them the distinct impression that I know my onions and that I won't be mucked around with bluff.

Hopefully this, coupled with a very cooperative developer (he's pulling his records from his archive for me), will help turn the situation around without the need for small claims to be involved.

Thanks.

RM