Photo 5 FOCUS Current affairs
Figure 2: Separated pipe end. Photo 6
the floors below. The block had just achieved practical completion, with tenants due to move in. Overall, the size of the loss was substantial. The source of the escape was traced to a separated joint between a fitting and a section of pipework, provided by the same manufacturer, on the cold water booster service, which operated at 3 bar. The manufacturer’s fittings and pipework are rated at 16 bar. Therefore, the likely explanations are either
a defectively assembled joint, or a defectively manufactured product. Examining the separated pipe, multiple witness marks were apparent at the end. They suggested the joint had been assembled, disassembled then defectively reassembled (see Figure 2 above). The marks indicated by the yellow and red arrows were caused when the joint was first made, while the marks indicated by the green arrows were caused by the internal grab ring teeth when the joint was last made. Pressure testing in accordance with the
Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999, the British standard and manufacturing requirements would have more likely than not identified the defectively assembled joint. However, it has to be recognised that when pipework is contained within a wall or chase, this can provide additional axial restrain to prevent separation during testing. This matter went to litigation, and the position
of the installer was clear – the system had been pressure tested in accordance with the water regulations and the manufacturer’s instructions.
42 JULY/AUGUST 2020
www.frmjournal.com
Sectioned 15mm port
Initially, the installer was unable to provide the test certificates, but as the matter progressed – at substantial cost to both parties – the installer managed to locate them. Examining the certificates, an anomaly was identified. Whilst each apartment appeared to have
been pressure tested, there were no details of start and end pressures – plastic systems are allowed a pressure drop due to their elastic behaviour. Further, the start and end times were not recorded. The lack of these details do not automatically infer that the test was not properly completed. It is noteworthy however that Test A within
the water regulations is the shortest for plastic systems and is two hours long. This excludes connecting the test equipment to the system. At mediation, the installer’s solicitors were unable to explain how the installer had managed to test 14 apartments in one day. Needless to say, the matter was settled to the satisfaction of the claimant.
Severe damage
As an investigator, I routinely attend properties and meet those who are affected. Where fire is concerned, occupiers tend to be thankful that they survived and that noone else was injured (as is often the case). However, water damage is often not immediately apparent once the water has receded and any debris has been cleared. If this is severe enough, fixtures, fittings, plaster walls and floorings
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
