Dangerous plumbing work

[S4nj]

Hello all,

I had a hot water tank fitted in my loft by a local plumbing company in 2014. However, it was not fitted on a sufficiently strong base. It was setup on the loft floorboards which are just chipboard.

There was a water leak by the tank due to faulty valve, and i called a plumber to resolve the issue. He noticed that the tank is not on a secure base and the wet chipboard has bowed. He said this could come through the roof at any time.Therefore, since Thursday the tank has been emptied and we've no hot water.

I have emailed the company to advise yesterday with photo evidence. I also rang them today and they confirmed receipt of the email.

If they cannot return to remediate then i will have to pay a local plumber to move and refit the tank. This us likely to cost (est £1000).

I was considering going to UK small claims court if the company do not pay or remediate. However, i read a clause stating 6 years from service. This was installed in 2014, therefore it would be 7 years. Can i still make a case?

[echat11]

Hi S4NJ

This really is one for one of the legal's pt2537 on the site, but I believe it is possible as you've only recently discovered the poor workmanship and the resulting damage (but is it something you should have spotted at the time of installation).

Have a read of the following - https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-la...er-english-law

[meellis]

Hi, I feel you might struggle to prove any fault with this installation (obviously I haven't seen it). Chipboard in itself wouldn't be deemed unsuitable, if the cylinder was in an airing cupboard for instance the floor would be chipboard probably anyway. How the chipboard is supported and fixed across the rafters might be a concern and whether the attic and roof were actually designed to take the weight at the point it was installed and the weight was distributed across the rafters might also be of concern. There are regulations (part G3) which cover the installation of water tanks and cylinders and if it is an unvented cylinder it is a controlled installation because of the inherent dangers created by the devices (basically they can turn into bombs if they aren't controlled and installed correctly). The important question though would be whether you have had and document the relevant servicing and maintenance that would have been required over the years since installation. If you cannot prove due diligence in respect of safety and maintenance checks which would have highlighted an unsuitable installation then I feel it would be difficult to prove the installation to be at fault, as you have stated a faulty valve has caused the damage to the floor.

[echat11]

It might also be something that should be reported to Trading Standards due to Health and Safety issues. Take more pics / video of the installation.

You could seek a report from an Expert Witness - https://www.jspubs.com/expert-witness/si/p/plumbing/

[MIKE770]

where did you £1000 figure from???

[Ukmicky]

You in time under the limitations act but may find it hard to prove the product was unsuitable

[echat11]

You in time under the limitations act but may find it hard to prove the product was unsuitable

It's not the product, but the installation that is the cause for concern, 'He noticed that the tank is not on a secure base and the wet chipboard has bowed. He said this could come through the roof at any time.'

[MIKE770]

failure in duties of care!



most plumbers give a one year guarantee on work completed. ie the work you have done, not the work carried out by any previous contractor. but legally you could be liable for up to six years for bad workmanship or design.

[meellis]

Okay, I don't know the installation but I am guessing that it would be a mains pressure or unvented hot water cylinder. I say this because it is difficult to install a normal vented cylinder in a loft due to needing a cold water tank above it. A mains pressure cylinder is a controlled installation covered by building regulations and hence has to be under certain certification like gas boilers. They will come with a benchmark book which is a log book for covering the installation and maintenance of the cylinder. If the cylinder hasn't been properly maintained and documented as so it will be difficult to demonstrate due care. Chipboard is a suitable material for a floor , the other floors would probably chipboard anyway, It would be down to the installation of the chipboard and the coverage ie if the board is just laid upon joists and is barely bigger than the unit it might be deemed unsuitable. The water leak from the faulty valve has caused the chipboard to bow. The questions that will be asked is why the qualified engineer who has carried out the required maintenance over the period the installation has been there hasn't noted any defects in the installation and cured leaking valves prior to them causing this damage. The requirements are for the appliance to be serviced every twelve months. If the appliance has been serviced and defects had been noted then the question would be why wasn't it cured sooenr.

[ostell]

It would probably be a combi tank and up in the loft to achieve the head. But that is immaterial. Was this scare tactics from the tradesman? If the tank is larger than the joist gap then no way is it going to fall through.

I think there is no reasonable cause for the original installer to be responsible

[echat11]

We could do with some pictures of the tank, chipboard etc. The ones you've already taken.

[meellis]

Ostell, I am with you on the scare story theory, not sure about the combi tank but it is irrelevant to a point. The point I was subtly trying to make was that a mains pressure unvented cylinder is a controlled installation which might strengthen any claim he might have. Personally though, through my trade as a gas registered plumbing and heating engineer, I do not feel they have reasonable case either. The first part of the description explains that it has been installed upon the loft floorboards which are just chipboard. Well the majority of modern houses have chipboard floorboards so I don't feel the description states why this particular chipboard is unsuitable. Secondly they state that there was a leak by the tank that was caused by a faulty valve which caused the wet chipboard to bow. Now if this valve had leaked within the first twelve months after installation then the installer might carry a certain amount of liability but seven years after installation when there should have been periodic maintenance I would feel should remove liability from the installer. As for the cylinder falling through the ceiling like you say very unlikely at worst it could topple over and cause damage but still very unlikely.

[ostell]

Meellis: I've had that combi tank in the loft in a bungalow I owned. Stood on planks of wood and also in a flat