Current affairs
theme is defective workmanship, as well as a lack of compliance with the water regulations, the building regulations and standards. An overview of the incidents we have investigated is given in the pie chart in Figure 1 (see below). As is evident, 67% of escapes of water are
attributable to a defectively assembled jointing system, while a further 21% are attributable to other forms of defective workmanship. Therefore, 88% of the escapes of water we investigated between 2015 and 2019 were attributable to defective workmanship and therefore could have been avoided.
System testing
So what can be done to identify defective joints prior to an escape of water incident and lessen the impact? There has been much progress in leak detection technology, but it is still in its infancy and to realise its potential would require mass adoption. Perhaps the answer is closer to home. The regulations and standards are clear – every system requires testing. This includes new systems and those that are modified. In that regard, this is no different to electrical
systems – a new consumer unit or intake would be tested for electrical safety. The test requirements for water systems can vary, depending on whether the system includes
metal, plastic or a combination of both. However, the test requires pressurising the system with water to a multiple of the maximum system design pressure – usually 1.5 times. The purpose of the test, amongst other
things, is intended to identify defectively assembled joints, fi ttings and pipework. This is in addition to any manufacturer’s requirements, which should also be completed as per the stipulation that systems with fi ttings should be pressure tested to 2 bar for 10 minutes and then 10 bar for 10 minutes. While no guarantee that a defectively assembled joint will be identified – because systems are dynamic and so static tests are not fully representative – it is of no surprise that when a defectively assembled joint is identifi ed as the source, there is often no accompanying certifi cate to indicate that appropriate testing has been completed by the installer.
Case in point
A matter I investigated has recently concluded, but it serves as an excellent example of the importance of testing and the requirements to document it. A large dilapidated offi ce block was converted into apartments, and the works were substantial, requiring new hot and cold water services to be fi tted throughout. Shortly after completion, there was an escape of water on the fourth floor affecting
FOCUS
Figure 1: Escape of water breakdown by type 2015-2019.
www.frmjournal.com JULY/AUGUST 2020 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
