dual fuel dilemma

[VillageIdiot2]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

Martin wrote:Meanwhile the WTA should advocate caution to all its members at the very least…..and I don’t need to phone Corgi’s Tech Desk to apply that logic.

“for the WTA to say otherwise is not a good move IMHO”

Hi Martin,

I’m simply answering a members question! Corgi issues will be dealt with in time on a much larger scale that this thread!

If we have, in writing from corgi that it is permitted to work on the electrical side of a duel fuel, that’s all we would do is post it and let each repairer make up their own mind!

Adrian

[Lawrence]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

washdoctor wrote:
If we have, in writing from corgi that it is permitted to work on the electrical side of a duel fuel, that’s all we would do is post it and let each repairer make up their own mind!
Adrian

I think that is all that we can do ,state the facts as given to us by the regulatory body.
Then people have to make their own mind up .
Lawrence

[aqualectric]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

I spoke to a senior gas engineer today and he agreed that as long as the gas supply isn’t disconnected or any pipes damaged or disturbed, then it is permissible to repair the electrical side of a dual fuel cooker. I don’t get many requests for repairs on dual fuel stuff, but the amount of range cookers coming up will surely mean someone has to repair them. Get a Corgi fitter? Fat chance – why repair a greasy cooker when you can fit a boiler? No contest!! 😀
I think you have to use your discretion at all times to evaluate each job and decide if what you are doing is safe. If the part you need to fit involves moving or adjusting anything carrying gas, then you have to stop and say No. If you can’t make that distinction, then you should say No before you start.
If the Corgi “engineer” who fitted my boiler is anything to go by, Stevie Wonder could do a better job – with his eyes shut!!

Steve.

[kwatt]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

Before we get involved in a deep discussion over this…

Imagine the scene, the fire brigade has attended a “kitchen fire” who say that the point of ignition was the cooker. They discover in the course of the investigation that the inspector decides that the point of origin was the gas pipe at the rear due to a fracture.

You replaced an element two months before as a non-RGI.

So all I’d ask is, who do you think they’ll throw the blame to? Will it be you or will it be the muppet fitter that installed it three years earlier? And, you didn’t move the cooker, really… prove that in a court of law.

We live in a blame culture, someone has to take the fall for it and of course the home insurer wants their money back from somewhere, oh look, there’s a guy that repaired it a few months ago that has insurance.

I mean really, what do you think is going to happen?

But of course, it’ll never happen to you will it?

K.

[aqualectric]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

I understand that as “the last guy to touch it” you are running a risk should the worst arise. But I was under the impression that to get Corgi to finally state in writing what was and what wasn’t permissible to non – registered persons was our actual aim. Irrespective of whether we go ahead and repair a dual fuel cooker or not. Clarification is what is required from Corgi.
But if we already know the answer, and can predict what will happen if the worst arises, why are we asking at all?

Steve.

BTW – I turn away all calls to dual fuel range cookers – and that’s not that many ATM, just in case problems arise. But – the question is, do I need to? 😕

[kwatt]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

aqualectric wrote:But – the question is, do I need to? 😕

Technically, no. But we knew that really.

Practically, it’s up to each to make their own minds up.

K.

[Martin]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

kwatt wrote:So all I’d ask is, who do you think they’ll throw the blame to? Will it be you or will it be the muppet fitter that installed it three years earlier? And, you didn’t move the cooker, really… prove that in a court of law.

Precisely! That’s what I’ve being saying on this issue all along and I’m pleased you share my concerns here. 😀

I can’t help wondering though? If …….”it’s OK to repair the electrical side of gas appliances providing the gas system does not have to be broken into”. But what was the question?

Did it go something like this? :-

Dear CORGI,

I am a service engineer in the whitegoods trade and I repair the electrical components within gas cooking appliances. For example, replace fan elements to dual fuel ovens, spark ignitors on gas hobs, timer controls on gas tumble dryers etc etc.

I am neither CORGI registered nor have I any formal electrical qualifications. My boss showed me how to test the electrics and said not to touch the gas or mess with the gas side of appliances at all, which I don’t. Is it OK for me to carry on fixing the electric side of all gas cooking and drying equipment?

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely

😉

[bazza500]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

Martin wrote:……….nor have I any formal electrical qualifications.

We could start another whole debate on that one as well. 😉

[VillageIdiot2]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

kwatt wrote:Before we get involved in a deep discussion over this…

Imagine the scene, the fire brigade has attended a “kitchen fire” who say that the point of ignition was the cooker. They discover in the course of the investigation that the inspector decides that the point of origin was the gas pipe at the rear due to a fracture.

You replaced an element two months before as a non-RGI.

So all I’d ask is, who do you think they’ll throw the blame to? Will it be you or will it be the muppet fitter that installed it three years earlier? And, you didn’t move the cooker, really… prove that in a court of law.

I see your point Ken, but even as a corgi reg engineer, you wouldn’t do a drop test after changing the element as the regs state you need to do a leak test after any gas work has been carried out! Gas work is defined as any work that has to be carried out where a gas connection has to be broken. So that situation, you’d be screwed whether your corgi reg or not!

Also, we could apply the same situation to a washer, if a fire is caused due to a repair on a washer…. the same blame would be applied!

And yes Martin, the email was similar to your writing….. Lets just see what corgi say and go from there……

Adrian 🙂

[kwatt]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

Yes Ade, the point I’m making is that regardless of whether you are CORGI or not the last man there gets the blame and that’s just the way it works. The sad fact is that, if were to go to a court, it is manna from heaven if it was a gas appliance and the last guy working on it wasn’t CORGI to the solicitors as they will take you apart by saying that you were not qualified to work on it and you have no defense to that. Even saying that you didn’t touch the gas supply won’t carry you through.

In short, it would be very hard to defend.

On the other hand, if you were CORGI, you can say that from your XX years experience there was no interruption to the supply and no reason to check the integrity of the supply. But, as a CORGI RGI that would carry far more weight as you are qualified (in the eyes of the law) to make that call.

In short, this scenario is a hell of a lot easier to defend.

The point I was making is that the technicalities of whether or not you can legally do the work or not as a non-RGI are wholly irrelevant if it ever went wrong. All that will matter to a court is whether or not you were qualified to work on the appliance and, if it were me arguing for the prosecution against in a case like that, I’d have a field day with the fact that the guy in the dock wasn’t qualified to attend gas appliances.

K.

[VillageIdiot2]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

I agree with you Ken 100{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d}…… I am quite excited now though to see what Corgi put in they’re reply!

Adrian 🙂

[VillageIdiot2]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

Below is the email correspondence from Corgi:

Q: Hi, I represent 80+ repairers that belong to our association (Whitegoods Trade Association).
We have recently formed and the one big question that our members are asking us is:
“Are non gas trained and un-registered domestic appliance engineers allowed to carry out repairs on the electrical side if a dual fuel cooking appliance”?
No-one seems clear on this subject, some say yes and others say no. I would like to get this question answered as soon as possible so our members can be clear on what they can work on. I have verbally been told by a member of the helpdesk that yes, they can work on the electrical side providing the gas system isn’t broken in to but I am requesting that I have that in writing.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to receiving a response at your earliest convenience.

Adrian Welke
Whitegoods Trade Association

Reply: Adrian,
Thanks for your email.
An ‘electrician’ can repair faults on a gas appliance providing he does not disconnect a gas appliance, break into any gas installation pipework, work on gas bearing parts, connections, valve gaskets or flue joints, etc or do anything that would effect the combustion process.
If he does he is carrying out ‘gas work’ as defined in the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations, he would need to be CORGI registered.
Any electrical repair carried out on any appliances must not in any way effect the safety of the appliance.

I trust this answers your enquiry

Derek Roberts (Technical)

Further Question: Hi Derek,
Thank you very much for your reply. I have one more question,
Most engineers are not qualified electricians as there is no formal qualifications for the domestic appliance repairs industry (washing machines, tumble driers etc).
Does that change your response?

Thanks again for your time

Adrian Welke

Reply: Adrian
I should have put ‘whitegoods engineer/electrician’.

Thanks

Derek Roberts (Technical)

Now, that seems straight forward enough to me 🙂

[Martin]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

washdoctor wrote:Now, that seems straight forward enough to me 🙂

Me too 😀

CORGI wrote:An ‘electrician’ can repair faults on a gas appliance providing he does not disconnect a gas appliance, break into any gas installation pipework, work on gas bearing parts, connections, valve gaskets or flue joints, etc or do anything that would effect the combustion process.

And dissecting that little snippet into it’s constituent pieces :

“providing he does not disconnect the gas appliance” = That’ll be the gas supply bayonet coupling then I guess. Mustn’t touch that! 😉

“work on gas bearing parts” = Can’t mess with the hob’s sparker’s then ‘cos that’ll mean taking the burner to bits! 😉

……. or do anything that would effect the combustion process. = Simply touching the appliance or moving it could effect that ‘process’ so that’s a dead cert no no too! 🙁

So that’s that then I guess? Hopefully the WTA Council will recommend it’s members that aren’t CORGI registered NOT to touch gas appliances, will they?

Another similar TA discourages non Corgi from touching gas by the way. (their COP Gas Safety Section 3.4.1 😉 )

[bazza500]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

I think you are getting a bit carried away Martin.

The disconnection of the bayonet connector I`ll agree with but your last two point IMHO are ridiculous. “Simply touching the appliance would effect the combustion process”…. Come on!!

[Martin]

Re: dual fuel dilemma

bazza500 wrote:I think you are getting a bit carried away Martin.

Not at all… 8)

bazza500 wrote:The disconnection of the bayonet connector I`ll agree with but your last two point IMHO are ridiculous. “Simply touching the appliance would effect the combustion process”…. Come on!!

Come on nothing mate, read this…..

kwatt wrote:the point I’m making is that regardless of whether you are CORGI or not the last man there gets the blame

The last man there – precisely!!! If you’re not a CORGI man you’d best have a bl**dy good lawyer don’t you reckon? :snig:

In this country of ours you are free to do what you like. If brain surgery is your thing then there’s nowt to stop you. You don’t need any formal qualifications. Open a corner shop and start the operations, no-one can stop you, fact! But the moment something goes wrong, someone gets killed then the law takes its course…period. And the ASGBI (Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland) doesn’t condone the practice either. I’m sure you’ll be reassured of that fact too? 🙂

Therefore I trust the WTA will take a similar stance?

If you touch gas appliances and you ain’t with CORGI….go see a brain surgeon….That’s my advice 😈

[Author]

Posts