Best practise, capping pipes.

[Mikael Gotlib]

Hello there,

I have a query regarding best practise and code of conduct which I was hoping someone will be able to advice me on.

The property where I live was previously connected to a communal hot water system but this summer the communal boiler was decommissioned and all tenets had to make their own arrangements and install their own boiler.

The plumber that I hired to do the job utilised the existing hot water pipes to connect up the new boiler (which one would expect) and in the process he had cut the main hot water pipe where the hot water previously came into my apartment from the communal boiler.

At the time of the installation this didn’t cause any problems but several weeks later I had a massive flooding in my apartment causing damage to my own and several apartments below mine.

It turned out that the reason for the flooding was that my plumber had left the old hot water pipe entering my property uncapped (he did not inform me of this at the time) and for one reason or another the pipe had been made live again.

The management office is holding me liable for all the damage as they claim that it was my plumber's fault that the flooding occurred but my plumber claims that leaving a pipe uncapped in these circumstances is standard procedure and doesn’t think he’s to blame at all which basically leaves me stuck in the middle with a huge bill to settle?

The management office never really explained why the pipes became live again but they suspected someone in the building (there's over 10 apartments) accidentally taped into the system again making the pipe live in my apartment.

I would really appreciate if you could advice me on this matter as I’m not sure who’s at fault in this scenario and what I should have expected from my plumber in the first place.

Kind regards,
Mikael

 

[SafeGasInstall]

cupping unused pipe work is best practice been gas/cold water or hot water /
some one who installed other boiler and made old pipe work live is as responsible as your plumber
this is only my opinion as engineer

 

[aqualogic7]

wras / water regs state dead leg must be disconnected by removing tee but will allow cap if unable to remove tee but cap must be no more than twice the diameter of pipe from tee

 

[markfxy]

the new system shouldn't have been commisioned without testing and a visual check in each apartment. The management company should have contacted each tenant and informed them of of their plans, in my opinion the management company are at fault its their job to ensure these things don't happen the clue is in the title "management"

 

[wheeto]

It's not what you've asked, but it will be covered under your home insurance as part of the occupier risk (not homeowner risk) you are insured against.

 

[SimonG]

You could argue that this should have been covered under the removal of the old communal heating system. But in saying that I don't leave open ends, it either comes out for the scrappie or gets a cap end on it.

The problem has only arisen because one of your neighbours has had their hot water t'd into the old pipework. So switch yours off and connect back into communal 🙂

Ask the management company for details of the plumbers public liability so that you can claim. If you state your intention to claim through them, they may back down!

 

[tamz]

This is a tricky one that will probably be best sorted out by the insurers.
If the management company advised (in writing) the existing system was being de commissioned, never to be put back into use again it may be reasonable for your plumber to assume it was ok to just cut the pipes and leave them as there would be no risk of them ever being used again. It may have been best if he had capped them as you never know what kind of idiot would do something in the future.
Has the old system actually been put back into use or did someone just connect something up to the redundant pipework?
It could be said, the person who caused it is the one who (wrongly) connected back into it as why would they. Obviously someone who didn't quite know what they were doing.

 

[gornsgorns]

I'd lay the blame with the first plumber. It's a golden rule to never leave open ended pipework because of instances like this. It just stinks of laziness imo, how long does it take to solder a stop end on or just cut the pipework out?

 

[GQuigley67]

the plumber should have capped the pipework, although the communal system should have been ripped out completely so no one accidentally connects onto the old pipework. only pipes i would leave with an open end are old cylinder drains that i can't completely remove

I remember being on a job before where I opened the drain valve for the cylinder to drain it which was in the loft, only to find water pishing out below in the cupboard turns out whoever done the last plumbing decided to remove the pipe, obviously i wasn't liable for the leak customer was understanding as he said the last plumbers were cowboys

 

[Mikael Gotlib]

Hi everyone, thanks a lot for all your feedback. Really helpful. A couple of things to clarify on the back of your comments:

- The management office did communicate to all tenants (in a letter) that tenants shouldn't decommission old pipes, however my plumber says he received different information when speaking to them directly.

- Old system hasn’t been put back in use it was a mistake that the pipes were made live again. However, no-one knows (to the best of my knowledge) who made them live as they run through the entire building.

- The insurance company has already investigated but as it's a leasehold that's all been managed by the management company so the money which the management company want from me is just the excess which still amounts to £750.

Mikael

 

[Puddle]

Hi everyone, thanks a lot for all your feedback. Really helpful. A couple of things to clarify on the back of your comments:

- The management office did communicate to all tenants (in a letter) that tenants shouldn't decommission old pipes, however my plumber says he received different information when speaking to them directly.

- Old system hasn’t been put back in use it was a mistake that the pipes were made live again. However, no-one knows (to the best of my knowledge) who made them live as they run through the entire building.

- The insurance company has already investigated but as it's a leasehold that's all been managed by the management company so the money which the management company want from me is just the excess which still amounts to £750.

Mikael

Well with information above, we can now rule out officially any blame of the management company

So down to you or the plumber

It is good practice to cap left in sidu pipework

However you were under an obligation to do so here as instructed in letter received

Even without letter, this pipework is not yours ,it is communal and you have no authorisation over it, the management team have allowed you to work on it and given you terms, these were not met, this makes you liable

These instructions should have been passed to your plumber, obviously they were not, he was given nothing from you or the management team in writing, he may have had a chat with fred down at management but this is why we have things in writing ,not just as proof but also so everyone knows what’s ,what in black and white, without things being added or removed

If questioned all plumber will say he was told by you and management that pipework was redundant and never to be used again and not need to worry how he left it and was just following verbal instructions. Using this explanation deflects from any argument you may use about, good practice or negligence on his part

So as said the insurance companies will sort it out but my view is

You are liable, you are were the official buck stops, you received a letter from management, with instructions of how works could and should be carried out on the communal pipework and it was for you to ensure these instructions were carried out and in fact you were negligent in not doing so

However ,all the management team here are looking for is £ 750

I would insist on them carrying out an investigation and issuing you a report of who connected to the old communal pipework and why they did so without permission or carrying out the correct checks of pipework and accept join liability and maybe offer to pay half

A lesson learnt to put things in writing ,to many people can not be bothered to take the time but it pays


So it looks like I am the misery who has voted for you up to now :evil: with extra info you added
imho

 

[tamz]

Given the further information:iagree:.

 

[wheeto]

It is good practice to cap left in sidu pipework

However you were under an obligation to do so here as instructed in letter received

Really? Even when the letter he says he had stated that, "tenants shouldn't decommission old pipes,"?

 

[Puddle]

Really? Even when the letter he says he had stated that, "tenants shouldn't decommission old pipes,"?

The letter would over ride good practice if you like,it just so happens in this case it corresponds with it

 

[Paulus]

Surely good practice would be to decommission the pipes ( cap off or rip out), but the letter clearly states that tenants should not decommission them ie leave them live. Even if the plumber hadn't seen the letter he has abided by what the letter says and is surely in the clear, or am I missing something?

 

[MattWeth]

I guess the interpretation of 'decommission' will be key here.

Would capping off of the redundant flow and return branches into the apartment count as 'decommissioning' or 'making safe'? My opinion is 'making safe'.
The original communal flow and return could still be used at a later date, so they haven't themselves been 'decommissioned', so the 'letter' has been abided by.

Open pipe ends worry me - I'd have capped them with compression stop ends just for peace of mind. That said, I don't think the plumber is necessarily at fault here - he had no reason to believe that the communal flow and return would ever be reinstated and certainly not without a pressure / leak test before hand (good practice in itself) indeed it was a mistake by another tenant that lead to the flood.