The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

CO alarm interpretation of flue

Extracts from the Smoke, Heat and Carbon Monoxide Alarms for Private Tenancies Regulations (NI)

I understand from several contractors who have reported that their wholesaler, with the backing of a well-known national manufacturer of domestic smoke, heat and CO alarms, are contending that CO alarms are also required in rooms through which a flue might pass. That contention seems to be based on the above regulation, 3(1) (c) and the interpretation of "flue" 

It would seem to me to be a stretch of the credible to consider that a ground floor chimney breast without further openings, extending upwards to carry the flue through a first-floor room to the chimney stack outside, would require a CO detector to be fitted in that room. 

I am wondering if anyone has bumped into similar contentions on the mainland.

Parents
  • It would seem to me to be a stretch of the credible to consider that a ground floor chimney breast without further openings, extending upwards to carry the flue through a first-floor room to the chimney stack outside, would require a CO detector to be fitted in that room. 

    I agree.

    The engineering argument might be that a flue could leak. Debris such as a bird's nest, or dead birds, etc. could (partially) block the flue at the top and there might be an over-pressure. On the whole, however, flues suck rather than blow.

    In a moment, Graham will be reminding us that only a judge can interpret the words. In the mean time, I would say that it is the wall which contains the flue and not the room(s) contained by the wall. Put another way, the flue is a cavity within the wall.

Reply
  • It would seem to me to be a stretch of the credible to consider that a ground floor chimney breast without further openings, extending upwards to carry the flue through a first-floor room to the chimney stack outside, would require a CO detector to be fitted in that room. 

    I agree.

    The engineering argument might be that a flue could leak. Debris such as a bird's nest, or dead birds, etc. could (partially) block the flue at the top and there might be an over-pressure. On the whole, however, flues suck rather than blow.

    In a moment, Graham will be reminding us that only a judge can interpret the words. In the mean time, I would say that it is the wall which contains the flue and not the room(s) contained by the wall. Put another way, the flue is a cavity within the wall.

Children
No Data