Wood burning stove fitted at last.

[Stephen Blair]

Interesting, so it sends out more gases and incase your chimney is leaky, you stick a flue up it:confused1:

[County4x4]

Much conflicting advice about as usual! The bit from the Log Pile site saying "it is necessary" - well that's not strictly true is it?! It may be helpful, and it may be advisable, but that doesn't make it "necessary". I sweep plenty of perfectly acceptable chimneys where a woodstove is fitted into the original open chimney - and much of the time, if dry wood is used, there isn't a problem. Some can be rather tarry - especially in cold external walls, but not all by any means, so I'd dispute "necessary".

 

Many installers will insist on a liner, but this is often more to do with covering their own backs later down the line, as a liner can avoid various problems such as tar coming through the walls in upstairs rooms and so on. The conditions inside a chimney serving a stove are completely different to those in one from an open fire. So I don't mind installers insisting on a liner. What I do object to is some of them telling customers they must have one, or it's a legal requirement, or stuff like that. I don't install stoves myself - but I have a very good HETAS chap who I've been recommending for years - and I also make a point of telling them they are perfectly entitled to do the work themselves if they wish - give them a link to Part J of the regs, and tell them about getting the job signed off by building control.

[openspaceman]

Interesting, so it sends out more gases and incase your chimney is leaky, you stick a flue up it:confused1:

 

Yes the open fire sends more gas up the chimney because the fire ejects air from the room up the chimney. This is how originally air was circulated in a mine before fans, a small fire was maintained at the bottom of a shaft and it evacuated air from the gallery, fresh air being sucked down a separate shaft.

 

This has no bearing on whether the chimney leaks and requires a liner.

 

As far as I can see, and I have never fitted domestic boilers since the building regulations applied to them:

 

If the existing chimney passes as suitable then no building regs notification is required to make use of it again and a like for like stove replacement does not need building control notification.

 

If it is a new installation or converting an open fire to a stove then it is regulated by building control. HETAS installers can self certify their own work but not anything fitted by others.

 

New flues liners or stoves now require the fitting of a carbon monoxide alarm.

[Alycidon]

 

That is very different to what Rupe has done here, Rupe has simply lined an existing flue, the guy to mention was installing a new flue, not the same at all.

 

If insurers don't pay out because of the lack of paper work what happens about all the stoves that were fitted before the HETAS stuff came in???

 

PS, do you have a link to the case you have mentioned??

 

 

 

Irrespective of what he has done it should be signed off, unless his insurer agrees in writing that it need not be. At the end of teh day the guy knows teh situation and thats the important bit, what he does with the info is entirly his concearn as quite right to.

 

As for old stoves then that is a bit of a legal minefield at present, there has been legislation in place since at least 2002.

 

The case concerned was mentioned in a Hetas magazine artical dated 17/9/10,, the court was loughborough magistartes court and the home owner was a Mr Paul Taylor, he was fined £4323. His home comes under Charnwood Borough Council. Nor sure if there is a web link anywhere.

 

A

[skyhuck]

 

A guy near leicester did what the thread starter did, at the end of the day its not rocket science and the building regs covering stove installs are available free on line. This guy used twin wall fully insulated flue pipe, alas he bought cheap pipe which required a large combustible clearance. He was going through a bungalow roof, a pretty standard installation, but the pipes were to close to the roof rafters and set them alight. In short he lost his house and possessions, as there was no sign off his insurer invalidated his insurance. When a building inspector became involved the lack off sign off cost him a fine of £4400 on top of everything else. Suddenly a few hundred for a sign off seems not such a bad deal.

 

You have bought a very high quality stove ( I am a Morso dealer) and the install looks perfectly good, if you want to run what you have done past me then pm me and I will happily advise you. Then get a building inspector in to sign it off as safe to use, please.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Here is a link to his case, there no mention of his insurance being invalid, where did you get that information from?????

Illegal DIY job burns Loughborough man

Edited December 14, 2012 by skyhuck

[Alycidon]

Here is a link to his case, there no mention of his insurance being invalid, where did you get that information from?????

Illegal DIY job burns Loughborough man

 

 

 

An insurer will pass any claim to a loss adjuster whose is paid by the insurer to reduce the claim. As I understand it if there is no sign off then insurers are within their rights to invalidate insurance cover unless the presence of a stove is notified on the paperwork when applying for cover. I am not personally aware of any occasions where this has happened as we install 95% of our stoves and hammer this point to people getting builders etc to install but have been informed that it frequently does.

 

I had an instance recently with the NFU who are as good an insurer as it gets, customer has a flood, wrecks his Esse range cooker, insurer advises him to order another subject to getting costs, then loss adjuster in receipt of quote informs homeowner that as replacement value was over 3k the cooker is not insured and they wont pay a penny. They had been insuring that cooker since 1960 and had introduced into the small print a requirement for any replacement value over 3k to be notified to them some years before. Customer just pays and files the paperwork without really reading it.

 

A

 

A

Edited December 14, 2012 by Alycidon

[felixthelogchopper]

An insurer will pass any claim to a loss adjuster whose is paid by the insurer to reduce the claim. As I understand it if there is no sign off then insurers are within their rights to invalidate insurance cover unless the presence of a stove is notified on the paperwork when applying for cover. I am not personally aware of any occasions where this has happened as we install 95% of our stoves and hammer this point to people getting builders etc to install but have been informed that it frequently does.

 

I had an instance recently with the NFU who are as good an insurer as it gets, customer has a flood, wrecks his Esse range cooker, insurer advises him to order another subject to getting costs, then loss adjuster in receipt of quote informs homeowner that as replacement value was over 3k the cooker is not insured and they wont pay a penny. They had been insuring that cooker since 1960 and had introduced into the small print a requirement for any replacement value over 3k to be notified to them some years before. Customer just pays and files the paperwork without really reading it.

 

A

 

A

 

Did the insurer make any attempt to draw attention to the variation of an established term by any other means than inserting (concealing) it in the small print? If not, the customer may have grounds to challenge the term, particularly as the insurer would be the more likely party to be aware of the stove's replacement value exceeding the £3,000 threshold.

[Alycidon]

Did the insurer make any attempt to draw attention to the variation of an established term by any other means than inserting (concealing) it in the small print? If not, the customer may have grounds to challenge the term, particularly as the insurer would be the more likely party to be aware of the stove's replacement value exceeding the £3,000 threshold.

 

You might guess that the insurer coverd his backside legally, they all do. cost me a 6k cooker sale but such is life I suppose.

 

A

[skyhuck]

You might guess that the insurer coverd his backside legally, they all do. cost me a 6k cooker sale but such is life I suppose.

 

A

 

Thats what the banks thought about PPI