Gas Safety Certificate

[Old Son]

Do I need to have a new certificate every year or only when my BSS is due? Thanks

[mayalld]

Do I need to have a new certificate every year or only when my BSS is due? Thanks

 

You don't have to have one at all.

 

A gas safety check is part of the BSS examination.

[haggis]

You don't have to have one at all.

 

A gas safety check is part of the BSS examination.

 

If a boat is used for hire it should have a Gas Safe check every year and the certificate should be on display in the boat. There is something at the back of my mind that liveaboard boats also must have a Gas Safe check every year but I am not so sure about that.

 

haggis

[Laurie Booth]

Rented out houses or flats need one every year.

[jenlyn]

If a boat is used for hire it should have a Gas Safe check every year and the certificate should be on display in the boat. There is something at the back of my mind that liveaboard boats also must have a Gas Safe check every year but I am not so sure about that.

 

haggis

no, live aboards are covered by the bsc, checked it all out when i started building mine

[J R]

You don't have to have one at all.

 

A gas safety check is part of the BSS examination.

 

We have a gas safety cert (Gas Safe) done each year because we like to be safe. You don't have to do one. The BSC examination is NOT a full gas safety certificate and you only get an 'Appliance Record'.

 

It is correct that all rented property, houses, flats etc, have by law to have a valid gas certificate done each year. It is also correct to say that all hire boats have to have a full gas check each year. As an opinion only, I would like to see all boats fitted with lpg having a full Gas Safe check annually in tandem with the licence renewal. This is for the benefit of the boatowners and the wider publics safety. Would not like to be moored near to an unsafe boat that wen't bang. Have seen to many boats on the cut with gas installations that are severe hazards to say the least. Before someone says 'nanny state thinking', some regs are there for a reason.

 

PS: Not a gas engineer.

[canaldrifter]

I was a gas engineer for a while. H2O plumbing and heating based at St Albans in the late 90s.

 

Not all Gas Safe (ex-CORGI) engineers are qualified to check bottled gas installations, something worth remembering.

 

Not that many BSS examiners are gas qualified either.

 

There was a time when they were sent on a day's gas awareness course (at our expense) and they thought they would come back with a CORGI registration, but not so. That's why they are so keen on recommending bubble testers on boats. If they are not Gas Safe qualified they are not allowed to do a proper soundness test.

 

Tone

[alan_fincher]

We have a gas safety cert (Gas Safe) done each year because we like to be safe. You don't have to do one. The BSC examination is NOT a full gas safety certificate and you only get an 'Appliance Record'.

 

It is correct that all rented property, houses, flats etc, have by law to have a valid gas certificate done each year. It is also correct to say that all hire boats have to have a full gas check each year. As an opinion only, I would like to see all boats fitted with lpg having a full Gas Safe check annually in tandem with the licence renewal. This is for the benefit of the boatowners and the wider publics safety. Would not like to be moored near to an unsafe boat that wen't bang. Have seen to many boats on the cut with gas installations that are severe hazards to say the least. Before someone says 'nanny state thinking', some regs are there for a reason.

 

PS: Not a gas engineer.

I'm generally in favour of a BSS type approach, (in principle, if not in the fine detail).

 

However what you are proposing I believe is complete overkill.

 

You might persuade me if any kind of LPG incidents were in any way commonplace on current canal and river boats.

 

AS you have said, you are not a gas engineer, so, with respect, not really qualified to say what is a severe hazard, if you only think it is, but it doesn't actually end up causing the problems you perceive.

 

If there are so many severe hazards floating around out there, how come there are so very few fires, explosions, (or any other kind of incident) on inland boats relating to LPG installations.

 

There are probably now more incidents relating to solid fuel stoves and to ventilation. Do you have a solid fuel professional come and check your stove annually, (assuming you have one, of course....) ?

 

Compulsory checks and regulation need to be in some way proportionate to the risks. Why legislate specifically about gas, if the actual occurrence of incidents is no higher than for other things you choose not to legislate about ? Just becuase it intuitively "feels more scary" is not a reason, unless it is based on actual incident rates and severity.

[canaldrifter]

Greeny for that...

 

Tone

[pmms]

I was a gas engineer for a while. H2O plumbing and heating based at St Albans in the late 90s.

 

Not all Gas Safe (ex-CORGI) engineers are qualified to check bottled gas installations, something worth remembering.

 

Not that many BSS examiners are gas qualified either.

 

There was a time when they were sent on a day's gas awareness course (at our expense) and they thought they would come back with a CORGI registration, but not so. That's why they are so keen on recommending bubble testers on boats..

 

Tone

If I could add a bit of history to the subject of BSS examiners and the LPG soundness testing carried out during the Boat Safety Examination. The soundness test is a direct lift from BS5482 Pt3 ( which morphed into BS PD5482 Pt3, because the BSEN 10239, european standard was so poor).

 

Examiners are currently trained at Evesham college, which is a gas operatives training establishment.

 

Examiners are subjected to a 5 yearly CPD on gas testing.

 

Examiners who examine craft subject to the provisions of the Gas Safety(installation & use)Regulations are required to be Gas Safe registered unless the system is fitted with a bubble tester, or he observes a test carried out by a registered person. Private craft not subject to the GS(I&U)R do require the person carrying out the test to be competent and this is achieved by the BSS's training and CPD.

 

At the time of my training (1996) there was much discussion between CORGI, EA/BW, HSC over the need, or not, for examiners to be CORGI registered when testing private boats, It was my understanding that the then chief exec. of BW invited the HSC/CORGI to take EA/BW to court if they thought that should be the case. NFA.

 

Bubble tester are fine, but I have seen them fitted the wrong way round, no fluid in the bowl and the wrong size tester fitted for the size of the system.

[canaldrifter]

If I could add a bit of history to the subject of BSS examiners and the LPG soundness testing carried out during the Boat Safety Examination. The soundness test is a direct lift from BS5482 Pt3 ( which morphed into BS PD5482 Pt3, because the BSEN 10239, european standard was so poor).

 

Examiners are currently trained at Evesham college, which is a gas operatives training establishment.

 

Examiners are subjected to a 5 yearly CPD on gas testing.

 

Examiners who examine craft subject to the provisions of the Gas Safety(installation & use)Regulations are required to be Gas Safe registered unless the system is fitted with a bubble tester, or he observes a test carried out by a registered person. Private craft not subject to the GS(I&U)R do require the person carrying out the test to be competent and this is achieved by the BSS's training and CPD.

 

At the time of my training (1996) there was much discussion between CORGI, EA/BW, HSC over the need, or not, for examiners to be CORGI registered when testing private boats, It was my understanding that the then chief exec. of BW invited the HSC/CORGI to take EA/BW to court if they thought that should be the case. NFA.

 

Bubble tester are fine, but I have seen them fitted the wrong way round, no fluid in the bowl and the wrong size tester fitted for the size of the system.

 

Thank you for amplifying my point.

 

Tome

[J R]

I'm generally in favour of a BSS type approach, (in principle, if not in the fine detail).

 

However what you are proposing I believe is complete overkill.

 

You might persuade me if any kind of LPG incidents were in any way commonplace on current canal and river boats.

 

AS you have said, you are not a gas engineer, so, with respect, not really qualified to say what is a severe hazard, if you only think it is, but it doesn't actually end up causing the problems you perceive.

 

If there are so many severe hazards floating around out there, how come there are so very few fires, explosions, (or any other kind of incident) on inland boats relating to LPG installations.

 

There are probably now more incidents relating to solid fuel stoves and to ventilation. Do you have a solid fuel professional come and check your stove annually, (assuming you have one, of course....) ?

 

Compulsory checks and regulation need to be in some way proportionate to the risks. Why legislate specifically about gas, if the actual occurrence of incidents is no higher than for other things you choose not to legislate about ? Just becuase it intuitively "feels more scary" is not a reason, unless it is based on actual incident rates and severity.

 

To PMMS. Good post and agree.

 

To Alan: You say that 'what I am proposing is complete overkill'. It is precisely not wanting anyone killed or over killed that the comment was made. The fact that we have thankfully few deaths per year from gas incidents in rented and private accomodation as well as on the canals is down to the regs. You cannot deney that. So far this year we have only had 2 LPG incidents down this end of the K & A. (Still waiting for the debris to be removed from the second one).

 

Accepted, with your kindly received respects, that I am not a gas engineer. (Sometimes think that it would be easier on this forum to be one!). I am however qualified 'to say what is a severe hazard'. Part of my job is to mitigate hazards. It is unfortunate that there are those who wish to ignore basic safety issues for themselves and other around them.

 

I find it unfortunate that someone who is perhaps an experienced boater should take such a cavalier and nieve attitude to basic safety issues. The only reason why we don't have so many deaths from gas related incidents is that we have regulations to make sure that we are safe. It is common sense which is why there are not more incidents, despite what you say that it feels 'more scary' intuitively not being a reason.

[PhilR]

If I could add a bit of history to the subject of BSS examiners and the LPG soundness testing carried out during the Boat Safety Examination. The soundness test is a direct lift from BS5482 Pt3 ( which morphed into BS PD5482 Pt3, because the BSEN 10239, european standard was so poor).

 

Examiners are currently trained at Evesham college, which is a gas operatives training establishment.

 

Examiners are subjected to a 5 yearly CPD on gas testing.

 

Examiners who examine craft subject to the provisions of the Gas Safety(installation & use)Regulations are required to be Gas Safe registered unless the system is fitted with a bubble tester, or he observes a test carried out by a registered person. Private craft not subject to the GS(I&U)R do require the person carrying out the test to be competent and this is achieved by the BSS's training and CPD.

 

At the time of my training (1996) there was much discussion between CORGI, EA/BW, HSC over the need, or not, for examiners to be CORGI registered when testing private boats, It was my understanding that the then chief exec. of BW invited the HSC/CORGI to take EA/BW to court if they thought that should be the case. NFA.

 

Bubble tester are fine, but I have seen them fitted the wrong way round, no fluid in the bowl and the wrong size tester fitted for the size of the system.

 

 

Thanks for that.

Am I correct in assuming that for private boats not fitted with a bubble tester, it is OK for an *ordinary* BSS examiner to do a leakage test with a water gauge?

[jenlyn]

Thanks for that.

Am I correct in assuming that for private boats not fitted with a bubble tester, it is OK for an *ordinary* BSS examiner to do a leakage test with a water gauge?

yes, he will check it with a water tester, but he will ask you to fit a bubble tester for the future, they always do

[canaldrifter]

yes, he will check it with a water tester, but he will ask you to fit a bubble tester for the future, they always do

 

But if he is not Gas Safe registered he would be breaking the law even doing that because if he isn't registered he can't legally crack the test point blank.

 

Tone

[Old Son]

If legislation calls for annual checks on hire boats then why not on all boats? Presumably hire boats are fitted with bubble testers and will be subject to more scrutiny throughout the year than Mr Average who doesn't hire out?

 

Overkill or not, I think I will have an annual test. Whilst that alone won't prevent an accident, it is a safeguard to know everything has been checked.

[haggis]

It is worth noting that not all Gas Safe registered folk are qualified to work on boats. There are various levels to the registration and an examiner can opt to be registered to work on houses and/or caravans and/or boats etc. Apparently they have to train and pay lots of pennies for each part and as far as I am aware we have ONE Gas Safe resgistered person for boats in south Scotland. He is not a great fan of bubble testers and reckons they are not fool proof but if we don't fit one to our trip boat, we have to arrange for both the Gas Safe chap and the BSS chap to be at the boat at the same time. The BSS scheme will NOT allow their examiniers to accept a Gas Safe certificate even although it is dated the day before the BSS test. In my view, I see no problem with accepting a GS certificate and endorsing the BSS paperwork accordingly but no, that is not acceptable.

In view of the fact that both examinters have to travel a distance and it would be tricky arranging for them both to be there at exactly the same time we feel forced into fitting a bubble tester.

Not ideal, in my view.

 

Haggis

[alan_fincher]

I find it unfortunate that someone who is perhaps an experienced boater should take such a cavalier and nieve attitude to basic safety issues.

If you knew anything about me you would know that suggesting I am "cavalier" about safety issues could hardly be further from the truth.

 

I do however strongly feel that the degree to which law and regulations step in should be commensurate with the actual occurrence of real incidents.

 

If you had followed me on the forum over the years, when people from the BSS contributed more, you will know that I have continually harangued them that they should publish stats about known incidents, so that boaters could make more informed decisions about where to concentrate their safety efforts most.

 

The only reason why we don't have so many deaths from gas related incidents is that we have regulations to make sure that we are safe. It is common sense which is why there are not more incidents, despite what you say that it feels 'more scary' intuitively not being a reason.

A much used argument, but not actually one you can use with any authority, nor I can argue against, without the facts to back it up. Intuitively what you say feels like it must be true, and I remember all to well what the situation was with LPG on boats around 40 years ago, when there would have been no such thing as a gas locker deliberately designed so that nothing end up in the boat when you had a high pressure leak, and where supply to the cabin installations was often by neoprene pipe.

 

However, the reality is, that even back then, there were not large numbers of LPG related incidents, despite virtually all water heating being by gas, and all refrigeration too - every hire boat, just about, had two permanently running open-flued devices on board, one of them venting straight into the accommodation space. Yet incidents were, I believe, few and far between.

 

Do you actually know (for example), the relative number of incidents (now) on inland boats in the UK, originating from....

 

1) Gas installation

2) Solid fuel installations

3) LIquid fuel installations, including use of generators and petrol.

 

Without such facts to hand, how can you possibly say that mandatory professional gas checks need to be carried out annually, but no equivalent checks are needed for the other areas.

 

If you do have statistical information on actual incidents, I would be very interested where you are deriving it from, (and to see it!), because I have never been able to succeed in getting the BSS office to publish it.

 

If we become totally obsessive about safety on the canals, none of us would ever cross a lock on a wet day, or navigate other than when it was totally light and mist free! Intuitively I feel we face as great dangers using our boats, as living on them, which is why I try hard to be safe in every way I can, but trying to be balanced in my approach.

 

If legislation calls for annual checks on hire boats then why not on all boats? Presumably hire boats are fitted with bubble testers and will be subject to more scrutiny throughout the year than Mr Average who doesn't hire out?

 

Overkill or not, I think I will have an annual test. Whilst that alone won't prevent an accident, it is a safeguard to know everything has been checked.

Same question to you then.....

 

Will you have an annual check on your solid fuel stove....

 

Or your engine installation.....

 

Or your electrical installation....

 

If the answer is "no", then why do you assume your gas system represents any greater level of risk than some other on board systems ?

 

How are you reaching that decision ?

[David Schweizer]

I am always bemused by the amount of "mumbo jumbo" that is put around by so called gas installation experts. Basic gas fitting (which all we have on boats) can be learnt in a few hours by any reasonably practical person, especially if they are already comptent in water plumbing. But we continue to be bombarded by uneccessarily draconian regulations by an industry which is only concerned with protecting it's own self interest. (even my Central Heating Engineer friend agrees on that point)

 

Until the (more complex) Part L Domestic heating scheme was introduced, I undertook all my own domestic gas fitting and central heating plumbing, including dismantling and re-building one gas boiler, and installing two others. I have also installed several gas fires, but I have never had any gas leaks or explosions, Providing one takes the neccesary precautions and conducts a Manometer test on the system before commissioning it, there is really no problem.

 

Like Alan I am unconvinced that any more regulation regarding gas instalations on boats will increses the level of safety. The very few gas caused fires on boats that I have heard of, have been on unlicenced craft which did not have a BSS certificate, where no amount of regulation would have prevented it. Most fires on boats that I have been aware of, have been caused by ill placed candles either falling over and igniting upholstery, or setting curtains alight. I would be interested to learn of any suggestions how that particular hazzard could be regulated.

Edited March 11, 2011 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

Like Alan I am unconvinced that any more regulation regarding gas instalations on boats will increses the level of safety. The very few gas caused fires on boats that I have heard of, have been on unlicenced craft which did not have a BSS certificate, where no amount of regulation would have prevented it.

And, of course, the more onerous (and expensive) you make the regulations and mandatory checks, the more likely people will become to simply try and get away without having them.

 

People who are currently prepared to accept the (I think!) relatively low costs of a BSS inspection every 4 years, might take a different view if it, or something equally expensive, was forced on them every year.

 

For those of us who own our own houses, even if who can do various installation work is now highly regulated, there is absolutely no requirement for safety checks of any kind, or at any interval - that should put it into some kind of perspective, as houses don't blow up all the time. Clearly you have to be a bit more careful with gas on boats, as they carry their own supply, may take the odd bump, and tend to fill up with the stuff if a leak develops.

 

But I continue to say the measures we have to go through compulsorily should be constrained by the actual history of risk, not because of some hysteria that properly carried out LPG installations on boats still represent a very high risk level, but with no data to prove the point.

 

Yes, of course someone can find a story about a boat with gas leak, fire, or even an explosion - possibly even occasionally one where someone has died. I can always match that with a story about someone else who has died in a boat, or on the canals generally, but not because of an LPG fault. Just because someone manages to go off the back end of a boat and end up killed in the prop, I would never insist that everybody had to have a 5 foot high fence around the back end - it just wouldn't make sense.

 

If individuals want to spend extra money on additional checks for their own peace of mind, it is entirely their prerogative to do so. Without proper statistical data to back up their claims of danger, they should not try and force such things on others.

[mayalld]

To PMMS. Good post and agree.

 

To Alan: You say that 'what I am proposing is complete overkill'. It is precisely not wanting anyone killed or over killed that the comment was made. The fact that we have thankfully few deaths per year from gas incidents in rented and private accomodation as well as on the canals is down to the regs. You cannot deney that. So far this year we have only had 2 LPG incidents down this end of the K & A. (Still waiting for the debris to be removed from the second one).

 

Accepted, with your kindly received respects, that I am not a gas engineer. (Sometimes think that it would be easier on this forum to be one!). I am however qualified 'to say what is a severe hazard'. Part of my job is to mitigate hazards. It is unfortunate that there are those who wish to ignore basic safety issues for themselves and other around them.

 

 

I KNEW IT!

 

You're a H&S man.

 

Your dedication to risk mitigation shows that you have been in the game too long, and forgotten that any competent risk assessment includes the option either to mitigate a risk or accept it. Believing that for any potential risk you must take a mitigating action is the kind of ridiculous overkill that leads to H&S becoming a laughing stock, and leads to people ignoring sensible H&S measures.

[canaldrifter]

My friend has just had her gas fire serviced. It was clean, the flames were good and the flue passed a smoke test. But the examiner wouldn't sign for his work because she had a cowl fitted to the chimney pot to stop birds crapping down it.

 

She was given a quote to replace it with a wire one at close on £400, including erection of scaffolding because H&S wouldn't allow them to use ladders any more.

 

She bought a wire cowl for a tenner, and the local aerial fitter changed it using his ladders in ten minutes, and charged her £40.

 

The draw on the gas fire is exactly the same as it was with the old cowl fitted.

 

So, Gas Safe engineers can be just as guilty of making work at extortionate rates for themselves and their mates as can BSS inspectors.

 

Tone

Edited March 11, 2011 by canaldrifter

[WotEver]

My friend has just had her gas fire serviced. It was clean, the flames were good and the flue passed a smoke test. But the examiner wouldn't sign for his work because she had a cowl fitted to the chimney pot to stop birds crapping down it.

 

She was given a quote to replace it with a wire one at close on £400, including erection of scaffolding because H&S wouldn't allow them to use ladders any more.

My mum just had her gas fire serviced with identical observations, however the conclusions were different.

 

The examiner cut the gas pipe going to the fire and capped it. He also put a warning notice across the fire to the effect that it mustn't be used. he also handed her a sheet of paper which stated the same.

 

The only difference is that she lives in a council house, so all the scaffolding and cowl removal will be done at great expense to the council instead of to her.

 

Tony

[Midnight Rider]

My friend has just had her gas fire serviced. It was clean, the flames were good and the flue passed a smoke test. But the examiner wouldn't sign for his work because she had a cowl fitted to the chimney pot to stop birds crapping down it.

 

She was given a quote to replace it with a wire one at close on £400, including erection of scaffolding because H&S wouldn't allow them to use ladders any more.

 

She bought a wire cowl for a tenner, and the local aerial fitter changed it using his ladders in ten minutes, and charged her £40.

 

The draw on the gas fire is exactly the same as it was with the old cowl fitted.

 

So, Gas Safe engineers can be just as guilty of making work at extortionate rates for themselves and their mates as can BSS inspectors.

 

Tone

Yes. Many years ago I had British Gas in to do a 'free' gas fire service.

 

They used their visit to say that the flue was not up to present standards & gave me a big quote whilst turning off the gas to the fire in the middle of winter.

 

However, one of my neighbours was a British Gas engineer, he came round, tested it, perfectly safe, fire back on.

 

They just used their 'free' service to drum up trade. Never used British Gas since.

 

Tony

[WotEver]

They just used their 'free' service to drum up trade. Never used British Gas since.

I kmow we're veering off topic here, but anyway...

 

We have a central heating insurance with British Gas; it's relatively cheap per month, and so far we've had a lot more out of it than we've put into it. However, each engineer that's come has criticised the work done by previous engineers to the extent that in the last two weeks we've had...

 

• 
   
  
• A new boiler flue
  
• A new firestop to the boiler flue (never ever had one, and the boiler was fitted by them!)
  
• A new circulation pump
  
• A new motorised diverter
  
• A PowerFlush
  
• Two full 10 hour days work
  

So just because they're fussy doesn't necessarily mean they're drumming up trade - all of the above work was at their cost.

 

Tony