Is British Gas trying it on?

[Jo]

My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance of this happening?

Cheers,

JD

[Bob]

Powerflushes must be as big a scam as damp proofing. I bet he doesn't need a new boiler or the flush either.

[Andy Hall]

He's being conned. Basically they are putting all the risk onto him. It is possible that during the powerflushing that the heat exchanger reveals some leak etc. that would necessitate a replacement. On an older boiler, this may not be economic.

However a powerflush at £400 is an outrageous price - you can rent the equipment and DIY it or even take the radiators off and outside and clean them with a pressure washer.

The best advice is not to do business with BG

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[tarquinlinbin]

Why doesnt he get a second opinion from another CORGI engineer/company?

[Paul C. Dickie]

In article , Jo writes

To answer this, ask yourself another question: do British Gas "engineers" get a commission of at least 5% when they con a customer into getting a new boiler? (Answer: yes, they do.)

Or, to put it another way: would you *really* trust an outfit advertised by Ricky Tomlinson, an actor who is type-cast at playing somewhat shonky scousers?

(NB: This does not imply -- and should not be taken to infer -- that no Liverpudlian is honest. I'm sure there's an honest scouser, somewhere.)

[Lobster]

I didn't even need to open this posting to be able to give you the answer - "yes"

David

[Andy Dingley]

I was doorstepped by BG lately. I took _great_ pleasure in explaining that I didn't trust their company, and the reason I didn't trust it was because of their use of a scouse fascist to advertise them.

[Andy Hall]

and they said?

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Andy Dingley]

Nothing at all of course. Big faceless corporate - the guy on my doorstep was just working from a script. Still, made me feel better, which is more than BG are usually good for.

[raden]

In message , Paul C. Dickie writes

You'd better ask Boris Johnson about that

[raden]

In message , Andy Dingley writes

You should have invited them in and wasted a couple of hours being entertained ... and then said that

[G&M]

Sort of implies that BG staff have CORGI licences :-) Did they all actually bother to do so after privatisation ?

[raden]

In message , G&M writes

BG actually stuck two fingers up and said - we're not going to play, what are you going to do about it.

The information contained in this post may not be published in, or used by

[raden]

In message , G&M writes

They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said (in a nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are you going to do about it?

[IMM]

I don't blame them. To men who are C&G qualified and have been working in the industry, why should they pay for a certificate to prove what they already know.

[Andy Hall]

At that level neither do I. However, if this is what is happening, then their employer is breaking the law if the employees are relying on his registration and don't have their own.

I can't find anything in the GSIU regulations or HSE guidelines that exempts BG. At the least it gives them an unfair commercial advantage if they don't have to do the same as everybody else.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Ed Sirett]

I thought it was the Transco guys who weren't registered. Some jobsworth of a BG customer would soon have clocked the problem if BG fitters weren't registered?

[raden]

It's called a special dispensation

not really difficult to obtain when you have someone else's dangly bits in a firm grip

[IMM]

Either Transco or BG, have minimum recruitment standards. They don't take on plumbers and the likes with a CORGI certificate, which heating companies would do.

The old Gas Boards would not take on anyone with C&G, or the modern equiv. Many would only recruit people they had actually trained and were returning.

[Andy Hall]

That's all fine, but my point was really about why they should be exempted from the law.

It can be that BG have excellent training and supervision arrangements

- they probably do - and that CORGI does not do a good job of supervision and manages by exception - i.e. acts when there are complaints.

However, it is inconsistent if BG is effectively allowed to run their own self certifying arrangement while others are not. Either everybody should be self certifying (which was deemed not to be good enough, hence CORGI) or they should be regulated by an independent body.

Having just one "independent" body like CORGI seems unsatisfactory as it is more like a trade association than an independent regulator - there should at least be more than one or a genuinely independent organisation.

Equally, if BG is effectively operating a self certifying arrangement, where are the independent controls? They are not the "old gas board" any more but a commercial operation, and if they are self certifying there is a potential conflict of interest.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl