Intergas commissioning

[buckley plumb]

Had a guy call me on Saturday saying he had fitted his own intergas boiler and would I check and register it and get him the extended warranty. He was not happy when I told him no and that he should not have fitted his own boiler.

Leo it wasn't you was it

 

[Riley]

Totally agree cropster sadly we will never stop people buying gas "stuff" however stopping them actually being able to turn the things on insures safety

 

[Ray Stafford]

we can all agree and disagree as much as we like.

Indeed we can. The difference, perhaps, is whether we deploy facts and research to support our arguments.

But taken in its simplest form, reducing access to the means of diy repairs etc will help reduce issues.

And there we go, with an assertion entirely without any supportive evidence.

I should make something clear here. If your argument is that restricting the sale of gas appliance to GSRs will be to the short term economic advantage of GSRs, then you are absolutely correct. Should it remain the only restrictive legislation, and if the industry manages to restrict the numbers entering the profession, then, just like an old fashioned medieval guild, it will work to their advantage in the long term.

Of course, should all other similar trades seek and obtain similar protections, then the resulting inflation in other goods and services will cancel out any gain. Indeed, the overall effect will be to reduce economic growth and impoverish all, even those it seeks to advantage.

However, I am addressing the assertion that public safety would be enhanced by restricting sales of gas appliances, spares etc to registered engineers. I assume that this argument presumes that such a restriction would reduce the deaths caused either by CO or by gas explosion, or at least reduce the occurence of ill health or injury caused by these factors?

If there is another argument, please share it.

So, to make the case for restricting sales, we have to do two things:

1) We have to establish at least the likelihood that such a restriction would reduce the body count AND
2) We have to estabish that this is the most effective solution - ie that the same reduction in bodycount could not be achieved at less cost through an alternative policy

So, lets check out the body count.

The first thing we notice is that CO deaths are not generally caused by Mains gas appliances. They are overwhelmingly caused by other fuel types
The next thing that we notice is that the actual number of clearly attributable deaths involving mains gas is incredibly small*. 3 in 2012/13. Zero the year before. The preceding years are 12, 4, 16, 11 and 9 respectively.
Getting into the detail, in most cases, the problem is that the appliance had NO attention, whether from a qualified engineer, or not.
Finally, in the very rare occasion where the appliance had received work that resulted in the death, the evidence is mixed - some is caused by qualified engineers having a bad day, others by DIY attention.

Now, we have all heard of the law of unintended consequences.

It is a mistake to assume that, denied access to the proper equipment, the DIYer or penny pinching landlord will immediately see the light, and engage a competent engineer. Sure, some will. But others will persist, and will use inappropriate materials, thus risking a higher body count.

After talking at length to the lady who runs the CO death charity, I got two clear messages. The first was that public awareness of CO, and the value of CO alarms should be the subject of an advertising campaign. (And I see that this is currently underway.) The other was that the profession and regulatory authorities should look harder at enforcing standards amongst qualified engineers.

You may not like to hear it, but thats an unbiased opinion. If you want to save lives, campaign for public awareness and CO alarms. And lobby GasSafe get your own house in order.

Its easy to blame DIYers, but they are not the primary risk here.

And, at the risk of boring everyone, between 60% and 80% of sales of gas appliances are to non-GSRs, but are not to DIY. They are sales down the supply chain (manufacturer > distributor > merchant) or to perfectly respectable organisations like HAs, government departments, MOD, universities, housebuilders etc. Since I assume that you don't wish to ban sales to these organisation, you would have to introduce a new regulatory infrastructure of "not GSR, but allowed to deal in appliances". All this expense could be devoted to actually addressing the problem, rather than your misconception of the problem.




*Near misses are much harder to quantify, as CO poisoning in non-fatal cases often goes undiagnosed. However, there is no reason to believe that non-fatal poisoning cases have a differing cause-profile from fatal cases.

 

[Riley]

Its a good idea crop then the price of the boiler shoots up to incorparate the tech which will prob be met with mix reviews from the buyers ,

Agreed mate but if it's across the board then people will have to pay if they want a new appliance

 

[Ray Stafford]

So is this how as a society we should be making decisions then, see how many die or gets poisoned & use those to determine our actions?

If we are arguing it as a public safety issue Chris, then absolutely yes, we should base the decision on safety outcomes.

How else would you base it?

 

[Ray Stafford]

Its a good idea crop then the price of the boiler shoots up to incorparate the tech which will prob be met with mix reviews from the buyers ,

The technical cost is trivial.

Manufacturers would have to add the logic and a USB port (if not already fitted) to their PCB.

My bank already give me the rest of the hardware for nothing as part of my online banking service, so it can't cost more than a few quid.

 

[lame plumber]

trouble is Ray, governments dont react to facts normally, just what is hurting them most. the reaction to 16 deaths in hungerford and 17 in dunblane got them moving to change laws on semi automatic weapons and hand guns as the public demanded it. However 16 deaths due to poor maintenance etc just doesnt cause the same response sadly. The fact the number of guns out there available for illegal use probably hasnt changed ( hearsay of course) hasnt resulted in any less killings, they even seem to be on the increase.

But if you do bugger all nothing will change anyhow, so restricting access to gas items isnt a bad idea, (sales to has or mod isnt an issue as we all know gsrs install them) But saving the potential one or two deaths if one of us doesnt get there first has to be a good idea, even if it only a rare occurrence as you say.

So lets start somewhere as co alarms are only bolting the door after the horse has left the stable and sadly most of them will never work as they are not positioned correctly to allow them to alarm in time anyhow. omho which after all we can all have and if a few more of us got up and put the ideas out there then eventually your lady may listen and put together a few ideas to put forward to those in charge.

 

[stevetheplumber]

i think were all imagining a problem that doesn't realy exist in any situation that can cause risk its the severity of the risk that triggers action. If gas co deaths are as ray quotes is it really a situation that needs looking at any further
I'm sure there are many more deaths caused by paracetamol each year and i can buy that in the corner shop, cars cause many more deaths but we accept that
personally i think the figures are probably as low as they can be given the number of gas users
Zero gas related co deaths is almost certainly unachievable over any length of time

 

[stevetheplumber]

almost a statisic my self just noticed a smell of burning and realise the anglepoise type light beside my computer has slid down and welded the bulb to the side of the monitor

 

[chris watkins]

If we are arguing it as a public safety issue Chris, then absolutely yes, we should base the decision on safety outcomes.

How else would you base it?

Personal I would like us to foresee the problems before they arose, not wait until there were a number of bodies.

What if it was one of your loved ones, Ray (god forbid) would you be so keen to wait until the count got high enough for action to be take.

Maybe it took a move into a side of the industry that is far more risk adverse, were the consequences of getting it wrong can be devastating for my eyes to be opened wider.
Yes there is a cost to maintain good H&S but it is not just about the money spent, it is about changing the culture and attitudes within a company, an industry or even a country.

This is never achieved with a single action or solution however much me may wish it or merit an idea appears to carry.
We have to tackle this from all fronts setting the limits for what is acceptable from plumbers, members of the public, legislators and enforcer's alike.

No system is perfect we all understand that but what you lot have at the moment is akin to the wild west, it makes me very glade I don't have to rely on it for my income or health any more.

 

[Ray Stafford]

Personal I would like us to foresee the problems before they arose, not wait until there were a number of bodies.

What if it was one of your loved ones, Ray (god forbid) would you be so keen to wait until the count got high enough for action to be take.

How else do you measure a safety initiative Chris, if not my measuring the number of accidents that it prevents?

For all that you compare it to the wild west, our regulatory regime is actually quite effective.

In the 5 years 1995-2000, the average number of CO deaths in the UK was 56, of which 22 were caused by Mains Gas.

In the most recent 5 years for which we have stats, the average number of CO deaths is 24, of which 7 were caused by Mains Gas. In the most recent two years, the average is just 1.5 people.

That is a massive reduction, and an achievement upon which all involved should look with pride.

Thats not to say that more can't be acheived, and it would be great to get to zero.

But to stop those 24 people a year from dying, we should look at what is actually killing them, not guess.

 

[Riley]

It's so difficult as there are many things that could make people safer but if we as an educated and experienced forum differ in our opinion so vastly what chance have the uninitiated. I think we all agree that something needs doing to protect the public as well as eliminate the Cowboys/diyers it's just very hard to pick a starting point. Gas safe always seem mute on the subject. The amount of times I'm still asked if I'm corgi I think speaks volumes about how much Gas Safe have made themselves known in the public domain. Whilst they are not solely to blame I think our "figure head" should have a much greater presence and prosecuting power albeit via the hse. People safety shouldn't boil down to funding and £ signs

 

[Leo21]

Indeed we can. The difference, perhaps, is whether we deploy facts and research to support our arguments.



And there we go, with an assertion entirely without any supportive evidence.

I should make something clear here. If your argument is that restricting the sale of gas appliance to GSRs will be to the short term economic advantage of GSRs, then you are absolutely correct. Should it remain the only restrictive legislation, and if the industry manages to restrict the numbers entering the profession, then, just like an old fashioned medieval guild, it will work to their advantage in the long term.

Of course, should all other similar trades seek and obtain similar protections, then the resulting inflation in other goods and services will cancel out any gain. Indeed, the overall effect will be to reduce economic growth and impoverish all, even those it seeks to advantage.

However, I am addressing the assertion that public safety would be enhanced by restricting sales of gas appliances, spares etc to registered engineers. I assume that this argument presumes that such a restriction would reduce the deaths caused either by CO or by gas explosion, or at least reduce the occurence of ill health or injury caused by these factors?

If there is another argument, please share it.

So, to make the case for restricting sales, we have to do two things:

1) We have to establish at least the likelihood that such a restriction would reduce the body count AND
2) We have to estabish that this is the most effective solution - ie that the same reduction in bodycount could not be achieved at less cost through an alternative policy

So, lets check out the body count.

The first thing we notice is that CO deaths are not generally caused by Mains gas appliances. They are overwhelmingly caused by other fuel types
The next thing that we notice is that the actual number of clearly attributable deaths involving mains gas is incredibly small*. 3 in 2012/13. Zero the year before. The preceding years are 12, 4, 16, 11 and 9 respectively.
Getting into the detail, in most cases, the problem is that the appliance had NO attention, whether from a qualified engineer, or not.
Finally, in the very rare occasion where the appliance had received work that resulted in the death, the evidence is mixed - some is caused by qualified engineers having a bad day, others by DIY attention.

Now, we have all heard of the law of unintended consequences.

It is a mistake to assume that, denied access to the proper equipment, the DIYer or penny pinching landlord will immediately see the light, and engage a competent engineer. Sure, some will. But others will persist, and will use inappropriate materials, thus risking a higher body count.

After talking at length to the lady who runs the CO death charity, I got two clear messages. The first was that public awareness of CO, and the value of CO alarms should be the subject of an advertising campaign. (And I see that this is currently underway.) The other was that the profession and regulatory authorities should look harder at enforcing standards amongst qualified engineers.

You may not like to hear it, but thats an unbiased opinion. If you want to save lives, campaign for public awareness and CO alarms. And lobby GasSafe get your own house in order.

Its easy to blame DIYers, but they are not the primary risk here.

And, at the risk of boring everyone, between 60% and 80% of sales of gas appliances are to non-GSRs, but are not to DIY. They are sales down the supply chain (manufacturer > distributor > merchant) or to perfectly respectable organisations like HAs, government departments, MOD, universities, housebuilders etc. Since I assume that you don't wish to ban sales to these organisation, you would have to introduce a new regulatory infrastructure of "not GSR, but allowed to deal in appliances". All this expense could be devoted to actually addressing the problem, rather than your misconception of the problem.




*Near misses are much harder to quantify, as CO poisoning in non-fatal cases often goes undiagnosed. However, there is no reason to believe that non-fatal poisoning cases have a differing cause-profile from fatal cases.

Pardon.