Earth Bonding from Gas Inlet Pipe. Whose Responsibility to Check?

Discussion in 'Plumbers' Talk' started by LockdownLandscaper, Nov 2, 2021.

  1. LockdownLandscaper

    LockdownLandscaper New Member

    Hi Everyone,

    I had an EICR carried out last year (by my letting agents preferred electrician) and one of the points raised was that there was no earth bonding from the (metal) gas inlet pipe. But there is. It's visible if you remove a kitchen unit plinth, but the contractor was just too lazy to look for it.

    My own electrical contractor has confirmed that bonding is present and up-to standard by running physical tests. It took a lot of back and forth with the letting agent to get this verified and not have to pay their contractor to 'rectify' something that didn't need rectifying.

    The property has just had its annual Gas Safety Check and now their gas engineer has raised the same issue (as an advisory). It was noted as "Equipotential bonding not satisfactory". Even though the letting agent has evidence of the bonding (in the form of photos and the successful EICR) they refuse to remove it as an advisory. Once again, their contractor was too lazy to remove the plinth and look.

    I will obviously be taking this up with the letting agent as I take my responsibilities as a landlord seriously, especially when it comes to safety. I am also going to put a note on the gas meter indicating where the bonding is accessible\visible.

    My question is... whose responsibility is it to advise on the bonding? Gas or electrical engineers? I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this.

    Any advice would be very much appreciated.
  2. BiancoTheGiraffe

    BiancoTheGiraffe Screwfix Select

    It's an electrical thing, not gas...

    Don't know why the gas engineer felt the need to comment, especially if they couldn't be bothered to actually inspect properly!
  3. dcox

    dcox Screwfix Select

    I’d say both are responsible. It’s certainly something that a gas engineer is required to check during an inspection and if it’s not present to leave a card advising an electrician is called to rectify. It would be reasonable to flag it up if it’s behind a kitchen cabinet- no one’s going to dismantle a kitchen just to check.

    Please see attachments.

    Attached Files:

  4. exbg

    exbg Active Member

    That is insulting, and a little stupid, if you don't mind me saying. How much of a kitchen are we expected to dismantle before deciding there is no bond?
    The RGI is REQUIRED to inform the "responsible person" of the lack of a Bond. that is the end of his responsibility.
    The bond should be easily visible (not behind fitted plinths etc). I have a few clients where I leave a Bonding Notice card every year!
    Mosaix likes this.
  5. adgjl

    adgjl Active Member

    It is on the checklist of things on a standard GasSafe certificate. I would say it was not sensible to start dismantling a customer’s kitchen in an attempt to find it. Maybe put a note next to the gas meter stating where it is.
  6. exbg

    exbg Active Member

  7. BiancoTheGiraffe

    BiancoTheGiraffe Screwfix Select

    The regs state the pipe should be supported along it's full length, should they assume it isn't just because they couldn't see it?!

    As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the wiring regs that says a bond must be fully visible.

    It's simply not right to immediately assume there isn't one! Why not just make a note saying it's unverified?
  8. exbg

    exbg Active Member

    If we cant see it, it may as well not be there! There is no choice to say "unverified", so you really want tis ee your precious kitchen being pulled apart, every year?. Or will you claim damages against the gas guy for damaging a plinth?

    But what is the big deal. We say it is not, apparently, there. You say it is. End of story until next inspection. As a LL, you may have to present evidence to your agent that the bond is hidden away, but that is it.

    With regard to pipe supports, we are not required to lift floorboards to check everything. Their is a specific requirement to check for a bond and advise accordingly. And I can tell you that a very large proportion of underfloor gas pipes are not supported correctly! If we were to spot or know that is the case, it is regarded, generally, as "Not to Current Standards", and there is no requirement to rectify. We don't even have to mention it.
  9. jonathanc

    jonathanc Screwfix Select

  10. exbg

    exbg Active Member

  11. exbg

    exbg Active Member


    So what are we inspecting against?

    Frankly, this is the most ridiculous thread ever. Someone has his knickers in a twist, and we get a page full of semantics.

    The RGI issued his card, and went. He is probably amused at the ensuing kerfuffle.

    It is simple:
    No visible bond, so card issued.
    RGI moves onto next job
    LL, aware of the existence of said bond, ignores it. Or maybe takes a photo to lodge with agent to ensure he does not send a sparks.
    Drama over until next RGI complies with his responsibilities. Which the LL will ignore
  12. jonathanc

    jonathanc Screwfix Select

    no idea what you are inspecting against. Perhaps you can quote the relevant gas safe guidance but the legislation quoted refers to installation.

    back to the original post. To say something is not satisfactory means it has been located identified and assessed as not satisfactory. As there is bonding in place the correct interpretation is the RGI has located it and it’s not satisfactory. If he failed to locate it then it should be recorded as not present.
    I had a similar situation with an extractor over a gas hob. Can’t remember to specific clearance the RGI fella was on about but it was when I checked for him, In line with manufacturers instructions
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2021
    BiancoTheGiraffe likes this.
  13. exbg

    exbg Active Member

    It was rhetorical. We are checking ("testing" is actually wrong word as we don't test, just check it is there) against the BS that says it should be in a position that is visually inspectable. We do not say it is "not satisfactory". Most RGI's are probably not "competent" to carry out such testing.

    Really, what is your and Bianco's point? You REALLY expect a gasman to start ripping out kitchens, only too be accused, subsequently, of damage. The BS says ot should be visually inspectable, if it isn't a simple card is issued. Why is that such a drama?

    Also, with regard to your extractor, the MI's for the HOB would take precedence over those of the fan, if there were any conflicts, as far as any clearances are concerned
  14. BiancoTheGiraffe

    BiancoTheGiraffe Screwfix Select

    The issue I personally have is that he/she signed a form saying it was NOT present... That was incorrect.

    Maybe the form is at fault for not having an "unverified" option, or a place to make notes.
  15. exbg

    exbg Active Member

    There is no option. The bond was not visible, so contrary to BS (although may not have been when fitted). It does not matter.

    Two questions:
    How far should an RGI go to remove plinths and cupboard backs?
    Would you expect him to reinstate to original standards and would you be looking for compo for chops and saw marks?

    Having just read the OP properly, my question to him would be: if you knew that the invisibility of the bond was likely to be an issue, is it not you that was too lazy to remove the plinth, rather than the RGI?
  16. exbg

    exbg Active Member

    I hope you, the OP, sees this:
    The bond should be visible for inspection as per BS (may have been when first fitted)
    How much if the kitchen would you expect him to take out hunting for a badly placed bond?
    If any damage was sustained in the removal of kitchen components, would you be seeking compo?
    You knew, from previous experience, that the RGI would require sight of the bond. Why did YOU not remove the plinth in preparation?
    The LLGSR is a record of the condition of installation at time of test. We cannot assume that a previous tester was accurate, or that it has not been modified.

    Slagging of an RGI for doing his job properly is just plain rude and ignorant
  17. BiancoTheGiraffe

    BiancoTheGiraffe Screwfix Select

    Wow, you're really fixated on this "taking apart the kitchen" nonsense aren't you.

    NO-ONE has suggested that!

    He still shouldn't be filling in the form inaccurately by saying categorically that there is no bonding in place!

    Is there really nowhere on those forms to make a note of limitations of the inspection?
  18. adgjl

    adgjl Active Member

    The gas safe forms do not have limitations. If it cannot be seen, as per the British Standard, then it is marked as missing. Simple.
    exbg likes this.
  19. jonathanc

    jonathanc Screwfix Select

    but it was not marked as missing was it, it was marked as not satisfactory which implies it is present but not satisfactory. If it was marked as missing it would have been clear it was not seen and the electrical certification would be enough to prove its existence.
  20. exbg

    exbg Active Member

    Your fixated on not answering the questions: who is responsible for damage , and how far do you expect him to go? PLEASE answer my oft asked question.

    A LLGSR will have the bonding question couched in different terms, depending upon the form supplier. Some do you use the word satisfactory, some just ask if present. In truth, it should not be on that form at all, as it is not specifically part of the LLGSR inspection (24.7). However, there is an over riding requirement that we inform the responsible person, and there is a card. There is some question as to wether the bonding is required in a lot of cases, but even that is irrelevant. we leave a card, the RP decideswether to take it any further

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice