Search the forum,

Discuss True Story Oil Boiler prosecution in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jyengineer

The pressure vessel of a boiler is usually made of steel (or alloy steel), or historically of wrought iron. Stainless steel is virtually prohibited (by the ASME Boiler Code) for use in wetted parts of modern boilers, but is used often in superheater sections that will not be exposed to liquid boiler water. However electrically-heated stainless steel shell boilers are allowed under the European "Pressure Equipment Directive" for production of steam for sterilizers and disinfectors.[3]
In live steam models, copper or brass is often used because it is more easily fabricated in smaller size boilers. Historically, copper was often used for fireboxes (particularly for steam locomotives), because of its better formability and higher thermal conductivity; however, in more recent times, the high price of copper often makes this an uneconomic choice and cheaper substitutes (such as steel) are used instead.
For much of the Victorian "age of steam", the only material used for boilermaking was the highest grade of wrought iron, with assembly by rivetting. This iron was often obtained from specialist ironworks, such as at Cleator Moor (UK), noted for the high quality of their rolled plate and its suitability for high-reliability use in critical applications, such as high-pressure boilers. In the 20th century, design practice instead moved towards the use of steel, which is stronger and cheaper, with welded construction, which is quicker and requires less labour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A CD10 asks for a building control notice if the installer is not OFTEC registered.

With all them boilers and your mate couldn't find the time and money to become oftec registered. I'm afraid I've no sympathy.

You may get more joy from a legal type forum.
 
yes, but what if he couldnt get the applicant to sign and pay for the notice, as he didnt deal with them ?.
 
thats because you are a plumber who has wasted money on becoming oftec, when in facts after a lot of legal research, the oftec registration for oil boilers is inheritantly flawed.

It has no cause for action in a prosecution, its simply a statute that cannot be enforced if its contested
 
He's the installer, his responsibility, should have had it included in the cost of install. Or registered with oftec and spread the cost over the number of installs.

It's the old 'I can save a few quid here', which generally costs more.

The rules are the rules, like I say you need good legal advice. Please don't use the 'I can save a few quid' again on the solicitor front. Might cost a bit but if it goes well it could be worth it's weight in gold. A positive result could open the way for a civil suit for all the hassle etc.

After all you have only put over one side of the story.
 
thats because you are a plumber who has wasted money on becoming oftec, when in facts after a lot of legal research, the oftec registration for oil boilers is inheritantly flawed.

It has no cause for action in a prosecution, its simply a statute that cannot be enforced if its contested

So I was right Tom is you. You'll get what you deserve, a good spanking for not following the rules. Crack on.
 
I see you've now got rid of the pdf you attached in your first post as you don't like being told you are wrong.

Forum rules prevent me from telling you exactly what I think.
 
So for anybody else reading this as the op has changed his first post a brief catch up.

OP installed numerous oil boilers and somebody else commissioned them as op not oftec.

Building control picked up on this and asked him why he hadn't applied for a building notification. i.e council missed out on money for the applications.

OP now defending himself in court.

OP won't be told he's wrong :)

OP spits dummy and gets rid of pdf war and peace attachment from first post.

Look forward to reading the punishment in the oil installer mag.
 
I see you've now got rid of the pdf you attached in your first post as you don't like being told you are wrong.

Forum rules prevent me from telling you exactly what I think.


sorry, ive deleted it by accident, im uploading it again

im not wrong anyway
 
Weird op, have no sympathy at all. Well done building control, hope they win, it sends out the right message to other rogue installers
 
you are a conflicted plumber, who thinks its a legal requirement to be oftec registered, or that its a leagl requirment that the plumber needs to pay top do his job, well you are wrong, the only time a plumber needs to make sure that he needs to make sure a permit is in place is when he is acting on behlf of teh customer.

If you have a homeowner, and they call a maintanace company , and that maintenance company get his plumber friend to install the boiler...who do you think is legally liable ?
 
anyone... tell me 1 case where an engineer has been prosecuted for dinstalling a boiler once it hads been comissioned by an oftec registered engineer or not , or when the installer without being oftec registered
 
Below the quick reply box is a "go advanced" button, which in turn opens up another range of options, including "manage attachments".

However, you may need a certain post count or something similar before these options become available.
 
Not sure if oil is the same as un-vented but there is no requirement for me to join a competent persons scheme to install a hot water cylinder, I can ask the house holder to raise a Building Notice (I still have to be competent which I believe "Tom" was / is).
 
Not sure if oil is the same as un-vented but there is no requirement for me to join a competent persons scheme to install a hot water cylinder, I can ask the house holder to raise a Building Notice (I still have to be competent which I believe "Tom" was / is).
That is my understanding too.
 
I've read the pdf, which is essential for understanding this.
To OP i would say you need to find expert legal advice - a legal forum, one that specialises in Building Regs.
Which country is Tom in? Could make a difference.
I think you are saying Tom is being charged with breach of Building regs by starting work that should have been notified to Building Control first (because he is not OFTEC).
I know that this is possible.

But you are suggesting that it was his "employer" who should be blamed not him as he was merely the subcontractor doing the work.
From what you say that sounds right - so it is simply having the paperwork to back up that position.

If I compare it to work my business does - sometimes we build extensions. We make arrangements with the house-owner, then we liaise with building control, then we subcontract the work to a bunch of sexy hunks (that's what I like to image from my office).
If we missed out Building Control as I see it they could prosecute MY company, not the bricklayers and groundworkers and structural engineers, etc....

However, lots of notifiable work does get done without prior notice and then you can apply for retrospective inspections - which costs more and may involve digging & disruption to check all meets the Building Regs.

I think it also says somewhere that the HOME-owner is responsible - so how would they have satisfied that criterea - surely through their agreement with Tom's employer - because Tom had no contract with the homeowners.

It does sound like Tom is rally unlucky because of the Way the Enforcement officer has chosen to deal with this.

If it was me I would want to put together a case for slander/libel against the enforcement officer - but that's not easy and could be costly. Always just worth threatening it though.

Unfortunately - even if Tom is totally blameless the damage to reputation takes a long time to repair and he will never get back the hours lost to stress and dealing with this.
 
personally I think it about time those in charge started to enforce the basic legislation and british standards to do oil and solid fuel works. It is stated you have to be competent, to be competent you have to have proved your ability in passing exams etc, then you have to register with an approved body to be competent. So if you dont and somebody in the council gives you a contract to do works etc, expect to be procecuted for not meeting the laid down regulations. Just because people have been getting away with it for years, doesnt make it right. Sorry but I pay to do it correctly and this time I pmsl at someone winging when they are caught out.

Same goes for planning and building regs, yes the homeowner is responsible but, someone has to notify the council of intended works and we as tradesmen know that and should check its been done before commencing work imho its part of our job.

first time to disagree with Mrs tp but how can you accuse an enforcement officer of slander/libel when your in the wrong!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
first time to disagree with Mrs tp but how can you accuse an enforcement officer of slander/libel when your in the wrong!
Nice to know we often agree. :)

I could well be wrong - oil doesn't figure in our business.
My sympathy is with TOM only as far as if what I have read in the pdf is true - often there can be more to a story. ---- didn't I say that.

I think although you have to be GSR to do gas work you do not have to be OFTEC registered to do oil?
I read somewhere that those who are oftec registered can self-certify under competent person scheme - just like we do for gas boilers.
And those who are not oftec must notify building control before they start a job.

So what have I said that is wrong - not as opinion but in terms of process, rules & legislation?

I am doing a Building control notice right now (yes i work late) - for a wall we are taking down next week.
If i didn't tell BC but they later found out TP did it I expect they would take issue with me and the company, not the labourers who will do the actual work.

From what I have read Tom was working as subcontractor and he did not make any contractural arrangements with the homeowner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anybody competent can work on oil, but you must be oftec (or associated competent person scheme) to commission the boiler. However if a non oftec person is installing then they should apply to building control and pay there fee. Surely if what is in the pdf is to be believed and you have gained a quite substantial contract for installing oil boilers and having supposedly completed the necessary training that you would go the further step and get yourself to a competent person scheme. Or at the very least ensure that there is a notification in place before commencing the install. Especially as the notification number goes on the paperwork.

The op and the thread just don't sit right.
 
The op and the thread just don't sit right.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I know you and Lame know your stuff.
I am only commenting on what I read at face value.

The thread was far more entertaining before I read the pdf!
 
^^^^^ I agree.

If this guy won that contract then why not join the competent persons scheme - oftec in this case - if only to cover his own aristotle?
 
I'm not disagreeing with you. I know you and Lame know your stuff.
I am only commenting on what I read at face value.

The thread was far more entertaining before I read the pdf!

I was just trying to expand a bit on the oil side.

But going back to entertaining bit, the pdf was in his first post along with a little please read and answer the questions at the end. How anybody edits the post to remove the pdf and put something completely different in there beats me.

The op, or Tom as I now call him, summed it up nicely by saying they would defend themself in court. Man of many talents? Or looking to save money on all 'corners'.
 
Mmmmm. Something doesn't ring right but I'm letting it run.

Does reinforce my opinion that oftec should enjoy the same powers as gas safe. The devastating effects of a problem on an oil installation can be as bad as one on a gas installation.
 
However if a non oftec person is installing then they should apply to building control and pay there fee. ......Or at the very least ensure that there is a notification in place before commencing the install.
Im not suo sure about this. As far as I understand it, anyone able to prove competence (Tom completed his 101 certificates etc) can install and its then his duty to organise the commissioning, or make note on the CD10 who is tasked with this. Building Control only need to get involved if no OFTEC commissioner is being arranged, see attached scan excerpt from CD10:

I cant see that he has done anything wrong and the usual 'string em up and beat 'em' thread is a bit harsh.
 

Attachments

  • cd10.jpg
    cd10.jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 66
prove me wrong but to prove competence you have to have done your 101 etc AND belong to a registered body, which is required for tank installation and commissioning boilers. If you have a large contract with the council, they would want you to have these sorted out to cover their backsides as well. Someone isnt telling the whole story somewhere if the building regs enforcement officer is intervening and willing to prosecute, theres more than has been told so far to this story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Reply to True Story Oil Boiler prosecution in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Creating content since 2001. Untold Media.

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock