Doing away with AR

[CMairiD]

Went to the launch of the National CO Awareness week today. Towards the end of the day, CO victims talked about their experiences and one young chappy's wife died from CO poisoning after their boiler had been AR'd. In his own words, he said, "No one ever mentioned the possibility of CO poisoning or death."

During the open discussion the idea was floated that AR should be done away with it: an installation is either safe or it isn't. I've also seen this idea proposed in CO report produced this year by the Gas Safety Trust, where they identified at least four instances, IIRC, where people had disregarded AR notices and died.

The chap and his parents were leaving as I was, and I stopped him and asked, "Why did you continue to use the appliance when it was deemed as a risk?" He said that he was never told about the potential for carbon monoxide and that it was only the pilot which wasn't staying lit. He said the installer even showed him how to re-light the pilot with a long match.

I realise we can't always legislate against stupidity, but, by his own admission, this installation was labelled and the man signed a form that told him his installation was a risk. Whether it was the feeling that "it can't happen to us" or the installer didn't impress upon him the seriousness of the fault, I don't know.

So my questions are two-fold:

1) How do you impress upon people the seriousness of AR, so that the non-technically aware understand the risks they take by turning on the appliance/installation?

2) Should AR be done away with?

 

[Dannypipe]

In my humble opinion.

1/ Not all AR's are CO related, so I impress whatever is relevant. I always explain that we have three catagories of danger, and that their appliances is potentially dangerous to their health or could even be life threatening. Once I have done that, and they have signed the paper work, what more can I do? Sometimes the response is that it has worked fine for years, and that they will continue to use it.

2/ No it shoudn't. because some things are AR and not ID. So we would be forced into being heavy handed with people. Calling out the GT to turn their gas off because we couldn't inspect their flue for instance.

 

[Hybrid]

Well I have two thoughts about it. The form we submit is called a warning notice and it will state the appliance is At Risk. The name implies that using the appliance involves a risk, be it CO, fire etc and that they've been formally warned.
If the responsible person decides to use the appliance they have decided to accept the potential risk.
They can't have it both ways, either heed the warning or don't.

Edit:
Forgot I had two thoughts lol, been a long day.

If the GSR issued the AR because of the pilot then that suggests he completely missed the more important danger of CO build up. It's an issue of an incompetant engineer as well as a thick as a reckless customer.

 

[Pssst]

Under GSIUR consumers have a legal duty not to use an appliance they know or suspect to be unsafe. If they have been informed in writing that an appliance is unsafe,then they are committing an offence by using it. Thats all we need to know. People need to take and retain ownership of responsibility. If someone choses to use something they have been told could be unsafe,then they must bear the consequences and should be prosecuted.

I would be more interested in exploring the whole idea of using CO detectors.

The actual incidence of genuine CO detector triggers is quite small and most beep when they are at end of life.

Many people are overly paranoid about the whole thing, having been whipped into a frenzy by ill informed programmes in the media.

It just gives frightened Brits something else to worry about.....and if it does beep...well what then?

Well in the extreme case,they end up forking out a fortune to find and use the services of a suitably qualified engineer who has the skills and equipment to carry out atmospheric measurements.

No..the REAL answer to the small risk of CO poisoning is installation and maintenance of equipment by highly skilled and well trained engineers.

At the moment we have a paranoid populace,many of whom use CO detectors as a reason for not paying for servicing AND the country is breeding an ever growing number of people who dont really understand gas but have simply been rubber stamped through a training centre whos main driver is making money and not cultivating engineering excellence.

I have a CF boiler in my home and i wont ever be installing a CO detector but i do have a smoke alarm.

 

[leelister6]

The appliance was labelled 'At risk' which equates to 'May pose a risk to safety IF USED'. Was used, and someone died. Unfortunately, as mentioned, you can't legislate for stupidity or ignorance. If AR is done away with and we're forced to cap off every appliance with a problem, we're going to be as popular as Bin Laden. We are already viewed with suspicion thanks to the likes of Alwright and Littlewood and this would put some more nails in the coffin.

 

[GQuigley67]

i went to see an open flued boiler to quote for a replacement, as soon as i walked into the room could feel the lack of air, customer then told me BG AR'd it due to not enough ventilation, but they continued to use it.

 

[kirkgas]

i think in another sector with AR that was remeoved we would all be shouting "nanny state" and "money grabbers" etc, not always correctly but we would shout anyway, but back to AR in gas, it must stay as it is a potential for a problem and after giving the customer technical advice they must take responsibility for their actions, AR on an open flued boiler is 89cm2 free air instead of 91cm2 (on an appliance that needs 100cm2, less than 90% being AR, and the IUP says that vents within 10% of target are ok) so do we make this install ID for the sake of a measured 1cm2 when there could be tons of anventitious coming in to support the deficit, i know the deficit is being covered cause i did a spillage test and it nearly sucked my arm up the flue, however if the regs say it is AR (as someone could reduce the adventitious etc) then the customer MUST be advised and told if it is used it is at their risk, the vent may never decrease so the punter will never be at risk, so too heavy handed will be the outcry, it is very emotive t talk to someone who has suffered a bereavement, BUT we werent there to listen to the gas engineer describe thedanger, but i can without question describe the many many times i have spoken to a customer about their AR install to be simply told to "F OFF" now i guarantee i have advised them in the strongest possible terms, and used all the emotinal blackmail i can, with things like "look mate, you have kids running about here, idont want to hear they have dies because you have used this boiler after i have advised it is AR, PLEASE let me stick a cap on it to ensure they are ok" still to be told "F OFF" (is it just me!!!!!!!!!) so after the event these same punters im sure would stand up in court and say "he didnt tell me how dangerous it was" so we cant win,
IF the powers that be decide it is OK or D and they change the law i will have no prob calling it and if no permission to cap i will phone transco all day long, bt who picks up the tab? and who will back us in court when we ID and old AR and the old lady gets hospitalised for hypothermaia, and the no win no fee lawyer quotes that under the old scheme it would have been AR and she would prob have been all right using it, and they will wheel in an exprt to say yes if she used the fire she would not have got hypothermia", and they wont let you say "aye her dead body could have been warm from the CO in the POC's"

 

[leelister6]

Yet again, it's all about arse covering. All we can do is fill in any required paperwork with as much detail as possible and get the customer to sign it. That said, if you get a cretin that won't sign, is the only option to get Transco involved? Would they come out and cap for an AR or only for ID?

 

[CMairiD]

Thanks for the opinions, guys.

I do take the point about people taking personal responsibility for their own actions and believe me, that was my first reaction when I heard this guy recount his story, "Why the hell did you turn the thing back on when you signed paperwork saying it was a risk to use?"

Then I wonder what do these words 'at risk' really mean to the general public. "Am I going to die now, tomorrow, will I get hurt in a few years, or is it just the 'elf & safety lot gone mad?" I could waffle on to a punter forever about insufficient ventilation and its associated risks, but if it's not hurt anyone in the last 10 years, I dare bet that bloody thing is back on as soon as I'm out the door.

I do fear that we've not heard the last of this debate tho'.