How can we improve stove safety even further?

[Stubby]

5 hours ago, BowlandStoves said:

I wonder how many of these self installs are not signed off by the local council? People are warned time and time again about the dangers but many seem to assume "it will never happen to me". Maybe when stoves or boilers are deemed dangerous in the future they should be removed or repaired immediately. I appreciate this is not always possible but the situation is similar to being stopped by the police for having an unsafe car, then giving you the keys back to go on your merry way - it just doesnt happen in other dangerous situations.

Mine is a " self install "  I sweep it my self once a year ( no cert )  It is a Burley Holleywell . Works perfectly . 6" liner inside a 7,5" clay liner with vermiculite beads in any gaps . The liner is the correct way up . there is a cowl on the top of the pot . It draws very well  and has given no problems in 8 years or so . Just replaced the side cheeks with new vermiculite board .  Am I illegal ? 

[Paul in the woods]

I also wonder how many 'certified' installs have been done correctly and have no issues?

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, Stubby said:

Am I illegal ? 

Probably not in this instance, building regs cannot be enforced after 2 years but you could be made to remove the offending  heating system *IF* it was shown not to comply with part J.

 

Also should a faulty installation result in a fire, injury or death the installer would be liable but I think this would still be the case if a HETAS installer did the work and self certified it.

 

It would possibly mean the stove would  need to be removed before a house sale.

[aesmith]

On 13/11/2018 at 19:29, Alycidon said:

It may be an idea to outlaw self installs,  so a stove can only be sold as part of an install package ...

So what about existing installations, maybe old and maybe inefficient and maybe not as safe as it should be.  Putting more obstacles in everyone's way will most likely mean that more of these older installations continue in use if it's too much trouble getting a replacement fitted.   I think it's a pretty big leap of faith to say that the accident quoted in this post was caused by the original installer.

[aesmith]

Regarding insurance and also comments about house sale, I don't think there's any widespread belief that there is an issue.  I had a quick look at the survey from when we bought our house in 2011 and the only advisory comment was "The wood burning stoves are assumed to function satisfactorily." 

 

Similarly when we sold the other place (2016), pretty much the same comment "The wood burning
stove is assumed to function satisfactorily." and no questions asked by either surveyor or the buyer's solicitors about paperwork or test for the stove or flue, or recommendation for further inspection.

Edited November 19, 2018 by aesmith

[difflock]

The more nannying people recieve, and the less blame attatched to peoples own downright stupidity, the more people will need nannyed, an endless vicious downward spiral.

Especially when conflated with the tendency to blame-and-claim at the slightest pretext.

mth

[BowlandStoves]

Hi @Alycidon

 

I am sure insurance companies are asking questions after the event to try and wriggle out of paying up. I am certain there will be some small print which says you have to advise them if your have a stove, etc.

Edited November 22, 2018 by BowlandStoves

[Alycidon]

58 minutes ago, BowlandStoves said:

Hi @Alycidon

 

I am sure insurance companies are asking questions after the event to try and wriggle out of paying up. I am certain there will be some small print which says you have to advise them if your have a stove, etc.

Agreed.     You and I have seen so many dangerous installs some done by Hetas registered guys.   I am pretty sure that an insurance company passes a claim to a loss adjuster to job it is to get the insurer out of paying the claim.  A call to local building control to ask about a record of a stove in a given house is pretty fast and if coming back negative can result in insurance cover being pulled and no pay out for fire damage. 

[BowlandStoves]

I was a little surprised to see HETAS pushing a particular insurance company but then again I think this is still a specialist area and maybe information is not so forthcoming as yet. Will we see a day when stoves are insured separately? I dont think so any time soon but it would make sense to make your insurance company aware of you legally installed and full functioning stove before they do start asking questions

 

Maybe even evidence of regular maintenance would offer more support in the event that you have to claim?

[aesmith]

14 minutes ago, BowlandStoves said:

it would make sense to make your insurance company aware of you legally installed and full functioning stove before they do start asking questions

Not in a million years.  If the insurers want to know they should ask in the quotation/proposal, or have some sort of exclusion or assumption.  The days of "utmost good faith" are gone as regards consumer insurance, if they don't ask then they don't have a leg to stand on in trying to avoid a claim.

 

Same with proof of maintenance.  Do we now think that stoves are by definition dangerous and the onus is on the householder to prove otherwise?  I don't think so, I think the insurers would have to prove negligence and point to some term in the contract that supported exclusion on that basis.  Negligence alone wouldn't do it, otherwise motor insurers would never pay out if their driver was at fault.

Edited November 22, 2018 by aesmith