Classify this please doubting myself

[Burger]

Ah well I made my call I didn’t think NC sufficed but as there was no obvious ingress I couldn’t stretch to ID. The LL was fine once his son had explained it to him. As I say these are properties that were adopted by the LA that I do stuff for and most of them had things on them which were overlooked for years. LA was more than happy that I raised it

Correct - you used your engineering judgement. I can’t see how AR doesn’t come into it as there is a risk of POC entering the premises. Usafe situations classes flues in a passageway as AR for risk of POC entering building.

And.....

 

[firemant]

Correct - you used your engineering judgement. I can’t see how AR doesn’t come into it as there is a risk of POC entering the premises. Usafe situations classes flues in a passageway as AR for risk of POC entering building.

And...

View attachment 37673

I am not disputing that the install is WRONG, but it is not classed under the Unsafe Procedure as AR. Ergo, it is NCS unless POCs are entering building. I wont even go into the concentration of POCs that would be able to enter through the grid..........

The passageway is completely different. There is an elevated risk where the flue is in a ginnel, and the through draught is restricted by the overhanging section of the wall. In those ginnels/alleys, the POC's are effectively trapped at the top, immediately under the roof ot the ginnel - which is efectively the floor of the flat. Any gaps in that area will allow the POCs to naturally rise and ingress.

At the end of the day, you can make up your own rules, but don't be surprised if, one day, a clued up LL sues you for any loss of income or expenditure.

 

[Riley]

I get where you are coming from however as per the other debate the other night NCS is technically not a term anymore. I know I still use it, well NC, but these advisories make LLs even less inclined to fix things correctly. I am not upset or worried that I said the wrong thing as, as far as I was concerned if the wind changed there would be POCs blowing directly in the hole. Again not all engineering calls are covered by one blanket answer and require some common sense sometimes. I’m not trying to get into an arguement or a slanging match about it. I made my call I will sleep easy. To be fair the tenant will probably thank me too as the draught coming in was bonkers

 

[Burger]

I am not disputing that the install is WRONG, but it is not classed under the Unsafe Procedure as AR. Ergo, it is NCS unless POCs are entering building. I wont even go into the concentration of POCs that would be able to enter through the grid....

The passageway is completely different. There is an elevated risk where the flue is in a ginnel, and the through draught is restricted by the overhanging section of the wall. In those ginnels/alleys, the POC's are effectively trapped at the top, immediately under the roof ot the ginnel - which is efectively the floor of the flat. Any gaps in that area will allow the POCs to naturally rise and ingress.

At the end of the day, you can make up your own rules, but don't be surprised if, one day, a clued up LL sues you for any loss of income or expenditure.

I’m not making up my own rules, however glad I don’t work for myself - looks like I’d be out of business for loss of income lawsuits.

 

[Aire]

I'm confused. How can that be classed as not to current standards when A) the terminology doesn't officially exist any more. B) When the boiler was installed the standards of flue location was the same as they are today.

 

[ShaunCorbs]

At risk of getting poc back in

Ar for me all day

 

[firemant]

NCS DOES still exist. You just cannot use it on warning notice. This is basic stuff that has been discussed extensively.

If the hole was 30mm higher/ further away, it would not even be NCS.

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.

 

[Burger]

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't, but also doesn't show NCS or the ID that you class it as? Unless I should get to specsavers - got in before someone else

 

[Burger]

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.[/QUOTE]

Unless this is where it is?

6.2 AT RISK (AR) APPLIANCES/INSTALLATIONS

An AR appliance/installation is one which is potentially dangerous i.e. where one or more faults exist and which, as a result, may in the future constitute a danger to life or property. In general, the appliance/installation should be turned off with the responsible person’s permission to make the situation safe and a “Danger Do Not Use” label attached.

 

[Aire]

NCS DOES still exist. You just cannot use it on warning notice. This is basic stuff that has been discussed extensively.

If the hole was 30mm higher/ further away, it would not even be NCS.

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.

I said the terminology doesn't officially exist so when dealing with unsafe situations you cannot use NCS

And following this chart, I would class the install as AR