MJNewton

Further to my request to the manufacturer about how best to deal with a side gap they said the following: Sounds like it might be better than mortar or roofer's putty which is what I am expecting the roofer to offer up? There are at least other lead flashings already up on the roof at other junctions. In fact, a part of me is even thinking that if they'd done that in the first place I might actually have been impressed that they'd treated the resulting gap and not just left it open like a cowboy would've. I think I'd still want it on the other side of the boundary line though so it's not 'my house' that has to explain what that flashing up there is for (e.g. following a homebuyer's survey).

Thank you for the continued input guys. It has really helped offset my temptation to avoid confrontation and risk to neighbour relations etc and instead to pull up my big boy pants and do what is right. Having slept on it I do think that the awkwardness of these conversations is a direct result of them not having taking place before/during the work where we could have discussed options and agreed on a mutually-acceptable approach being taken, and so I mustn't let that awkwardness dictate what I do now the issue has only come to rise after the work has finished and the scaffolding down. My current position is that I accept that the neighbours roof does not have to be identical to ours but, where differences do exist, the bottom line is that any such changes and detail overall should not negatively our roof/property. This brings the focus of the issue to the intersection of the two roofs and here we've got two options: 1) a tapered design such that by the time the neighbour's roof reaches ours it is of the exact same design and format so that the interlocking tiles naturally do what they do, or less desirably, 2) where a step change must/does occur that detail should surely be on the neighbour's side of the boundary line. The latter isn't been said from a position of stubbornness but rather recognition of the fact that *if* this design detail should ever fail in the future then regardless of who is impacted by it the responsibility for resolving it preaumably ultimately boils down to which side of the boundary line it sits. We might only be talking a few inches either way but I'm thinking that distinction must still exist? I'm all for taking a 50:50 approach to shared property issues but that is where both parties might equally be to 'blame' for whatever has gone wrong, but in this instance it doesn't feel like something I should be accepting given that the 'blame' falls wholly to the 'new' (neighbours) roof. Incidentally, whilst I have used the term 'neighbours' above I am really not aiming this at them. The poor souls having gone with a roofer which they thought was good (and, to be fair, I liked him too following the several conversations I had with them - I even offered them brews when the neighbours were out despite me not being the customer!) and they trusted him to do the work properly.

Their dry ridge has ventilation built into (under) it so presumably airflow coming through their eaves strips does now have an exit path. When I suspected we had possible condensation in our loft I just fitted felt lap vents and that seemed to do the trick and so this would've likely been sufficient for them and I would've suggested trying it had they mentioned they had an issue. I think the breathable felt we've got in these roofs is all well and good when new, but as it gets dirty I think it inevitably loses some/all of that breathability.

An update sooner than expected! The neighbour has heard straight back from the roofer and he's said ventilation strips have indeed been fitted, and he's working in the area on Friday so will come round and sort it then. Luckily I'll be working from home! I know it's a 'him' problem but given that it's not an oversized/doubling-up battening issue (that could be replaced by ones of the correct size) I feel like the only thing he can really do with the inevitable gap is fill it with something. That sounds okay, I suppose? It is afterall likely what I was going to do if the roofer remained incommunicado. Please do play devil's advocate with me though.

Just spoke with the neighbours... We took in a parcel for them today so that pretty much forced the issue! He took it perfectly fine, and did admit to not actually having looked at the roof in any detail since the work was done (oh to be so chilled about such things, compared to me scrutinising every last detail!) but looking at it now agreed his tiles do now sit up high. I got the impression he didn't seem too concerned about my projected concern of him potentially having overshoot in heavy rain, but he did recognise the issue about my gap. He asked for my photos and will get in touch with the roofer so let's see what happens next. Something else he mentioned was that they had a dry ridge fitted and so I am wondering if that means the roofer might also have fitted an over fascia eaves vent like this one to complement it, and this would explain why the tiles now sit higher: Incidentally, I fired off an email to the tile manufacturer about the side gap and their response was short and sweet: Obviously this doesn't tell us anything we didn't know, but at least it is coming from a position of authority.

Thanks Nick. Yeah, I do intend to speak to the neighbours. Whilst we're not close, mostly due to being like ships in the night really, the relationship is fine and so I don't anticipate any problems other than awkwardness of what to say and be asking for! In terms of remedy, do you think it would be unreasonable/unrealistic for them to be relaying the last row such that it sits flush? I wouldn't be surprised if the roofer might think that's too much effort and opt to do something else like lift my tile slightly to make up most of the gap, then the next one slightly less and so on until the gap is absorbed across a series of tiles!

I haven't been on the site for a while - I hope everyone is well. Apologies that it's a problem that brought me back... Our semi-detached neighbours have just had done some roofing work done to fix a leak around their dormer. This required the removal of quite a few tiles, including the whole bottom row (on their side). Looking out of our dormer window, and which the photo below shows, I've noticed there's now a bit of a gap in the side overlap where their tiles meet ours: I got my ladders out at the weekend (my most feared tool - not a great fan of heights!) to take a closer look and was expecting (hoping!) that it'd just be a case of jiggling the tiles into place if they hadn't quite been seated properly... However, this wasn't the case. No amount of jiggling was going to make a difference and so I gave up. What I didn't spot whilst up there though, but which I can now see quite clearly in the first photo and from ground level too, is that their whole row of bottom tiles sits higher than ours. I actually think theirs are *too* high and it would not surprise me if in heavy rain they may find water overshooting over the gutter! That's not my concern though; I'm just worried about the gap we've end up with where our bottom rows join. Specifically, wind-driven rain (although I expect the felt would safely carry it into the gutter?) or even birds nesting? With this situation in mind, what possible remedies might the roofer have to resolve this, other than removing and relaying with a batten (or whatever sits underneath) of matching thickness? Would any other remedy be considered something of a bodge? For example, how about a wedge of mortar in the gap similar to how the tiles running up the edge of the roof have in them?

Apologies; I missed this. As @JohnMo said this was just generic filter material - I bought mine from https://www.justfans.co.uk/synthetic-air-filter-media-10mm-1000mm-1000mm-p-2037.html. I see it is listed as G3 whereas I thought I was buying G4 as per what was originally supplied. Either the page/product has changed or maybe I never was. I'm not too fussed either way as I've been using it for a few years and it seems to be doing the job.

I got them from a Paul Heat Recovery page at this link which, unfortunately, no longer appears to exist. This is a shame as it went into some detail behind multiple methods being useful, and explained it well along the lines of the other info that they still publish. Here are the calculations though: Method A Efficiency = 100 x ( SupplyTemp - IntakeTemp ) / (ExtractTemp - IntakeTemp) Method B Efficiency = 100 x ( ExtractTemp - ExhaustTemp ) / (ExtractTemp - IntakeTemp) Method B attempts to factor in unit insulation loss which can also include heat going into the unit from the surrounding area this artificially boosting the apparent efficiency calculated with Method A. I am probably explaining it badly, and always just used to refer the the explanatory graphic on the page that illustrate the addition heat flow paths that Method A doesn't take account of. Edit: Here's a somewhat similar diagram from a different site that shows the additional heat flow through the insulation: : With these figures, Method A gives 100x(19-5)/20-5)=93% whereas Method B gives 100x(20-8)/(20-5)=80%

We're really fussy about lighting and are often disappointed with what options are available. For our island we wanted a visible filament, good colour rendition (>90 CRI with decent R9 performance), ideally ST64 shape (but GLS if necessary) and dim-to-warm functionality as it is in a 'family room' that really does needs different lighting at different times of day/use. A lot of boxes to tick and I found a grand total of one option and that was the Philips Master Value series: (shown here at quite a low level hence more towards the 2200K end of the range) They took a bit of effort to drive with a Varilight Pro dimmer as they take a bit of a kick to reliably turn on at very low levels but with some help from Varilight got there in the end. That's a long way of saying 'warm white' in answer to your question, although I would say accurate colour rendition is just as important in a kitchen.

That's good to hear - thanks Simon.

I am renovating/redesigning our utility room and as part of this will need to be rerouting the condensate pipework for the boiler. It is currently piped with a couple of metres of 25mm rigid pipe with a few right-angle solvent-weld bends and terminates into an internal connection to one of the soil pipes. I am considering using flexible pipe for its replacement, such as that offered by McAlpine: Not only would this be quicker and easier for the immediate task in hand but would likely also give greater flexibility (no pun intended) for if/when we move (via replacement) the position of the boiler at a later date. The thought has crossed my mind though: is this sort of pipe something of a bodge, in perhaps the same way that flexible toilet connectors or other waste pipes are commonly considered to be and really only intended for 'problematic' installations (or indeed problematic tradesmen/DIYers!)? I would of course ensure it was well supported and run with a constantly downward trajectory but it's the corrugations and how this would cope with any sediment that might be emitted from the boiler over time that are of concern, along with whatever else I haven't thought of!

Change. Ours came with G4 filters and for their replacement I've just been using a giant roll of cheap generic filter material that I cut and fit into the stock frames. They are certainly always very dirty each time, particularly the incoming filter which is black and full of various insects! The extract is cleaner, but still quite dusty.

Just stumbled across this thread and happened to have been looking at some charts for our MVHR system covering the five years since first installed and thought them worth posting as it looks like performance has remained fairly consistent with no apparent degradation: The overall average efficiency rating of 89% (or 74% using a slightly different calculation method) doesn't seem too bad, particular given the annual drops over the summer as the bypass kicks in an out thus throwing all the figures out. The supply-intake delta (difference in temperature between the outside air and what is being supplied to the rooms) has similarly remained consistent over the years. In terms of maintenance, all I've ever done is replace the heat exchanger filters every 6-12 months. I haven't cleaned any ducts, external grilles, the heat exchanger itself etc.

The cylinder does have a plastic diffuser at the bottom - could it be that breaking up? (I know they are prone to being blocked by limescale but haven't heard anything about them deteriorating though)

We've got a Titon - also bought on ebay as it happens - and have been very pleased with it. Ours is quite a basic model but I've retrofitted various external controls to improve its functionality a bit. Re technical support I was pleasantly surprised to even receive a response to my request for further info about the summer bypass logic, and they also sent a service manual too which I wondered was down to me sounding like 'the type that like to tinker with things'!

It was more in case it ever got damaged, or overrun with scale. I am planning on checking and descaling ours, and I am mindful that removing the immersion heater - which has been in place for 18 years - could lead to damage but hopefully the duplex steel is a lot stronger than copper where perhaps this risk is more likely?

Thought it worth posting back as whilst not the most exciting of subjects you never know if it might help someone else out in the future. As per the discussion I tried nipping up the flange bolts but to no avail - air still leaking out over a matter of days. By chance someone nearby was ripping out their perfectly working identical cylinder due to the installation of a heat pump so I bought the expansion vessel off him, and the cylinder too as these things are always worthwhile having a spare of, right?! With the replacement EV fitted everything is now working properly. So, what was wrong with my old one? Well, I removed the flange plate and pulled out the bladder - the 19th century football appearance immediately pointed the finger towards corrosion being present: Sure enough it was clearly visible inside vessel: And most crucially at a couple of points around the neck too which corresponded to where I'd seen bubbles emerging from once the vessel was out and I could dunk it in a bucket of water: So problem now solved and all that's now left is to work out where best to story the spare cylinder, the acquisition of which means I will almost certainly now never need it! Thanks all for the discussion - really appreciated.

Thanks everyine for pondering this with me, and sharing your thoughts. Will report back once things progress.

The PRedV is actually fixed at 3 bar, its the incoming supply pressure that doesn't seem to go above 2.2 bar - we're in a small town fed by a water tower and we're at the top of a hill too so low pressure is fairly normal around here. Even if the PRedV was passing a higher pressure whilst that might explain the PRV opening we would still have the EV charge air disappearance mystery. Good point about day/night variation though - I must take a look when the opportunity arises. Stopcock has to stay open as the family aren't coming with me (business trip)! I've recharged the EV though, am satisfied that the PRV does work and will safely (and calmly) discharge if required. I might also set the reheat window to a time when my wife can open a hot water tap for a few seconds to relieve any excess pressure - that's what I do now when I discover the PRV dripping and the EV charge gone.

Don't tempt me to do anything before I leave for the week! 😂

That's right - no water coming out at all! I'm just going to swap the EV. £40 seems a worthwhile gamble to fix it, which surely it will!

Yeah I make sure everything is depressurised (sitting at atmospheric pressure) prior to pressurising the EV. Once pumped up and monitoring the HW pressure I can see it rises from 2.2 bar to around 3 bar during/following reheat so it all appears to work fine... for a few days at least! It then peaks higher and higher - saw it at 5 bar this morning - and the PRV starts dripping. It does feel like a bladder-related issue. Perhaps as you say air (only) permeability or given it is replaceable it sits sandwiched between two flanges at the bottom and maybe the seal on the air side of that interface is slightly passing. At any other time I'd probably 'nip up' those bolts you can see but I don't dare mess with anything that might make matters worse prior to me leaving tomorrow. Knowing my luck I'd end up misshaping the flange causing a leak on the water side too and I'm not sure what I'd do then! When I'm back I think I'll just replace the EV. 18 years isn't too bad, and given how many times I've lost pressure I guess the bladder has really been exercised to the max and so it surely wouldn't last forever anyway. I might dunk the old EV in a bucket of soapy water and see if I can find a leak.

That's the pre-charge pressure (from the factory). The installation instructions specifically say this should be adjusted to suit the local supply pressure as per their formula. Beside which though, even if I was under-pressuring the EV this wouldn't explain why I go from 2 bar to zero in a week?

Yeah, I pressurise it to 2 bar (supply pressure of 2.2 bar less 0.2 bar), and of course do this with the supply turned off and a tap open to allow the air to be admitted. It wouldn't be so bad, but it takes just shy of a hundred cycles of my bike track pump to do it!