hydraulic pellet stove in oversized Justice

[Christophe]

Yes i think like you did ...

And justice is already crowded with things much more serious than a possible over-dimensioning of a stove (over-dimensioning in which I do not believe given the elements of this subject)

In addition as I said above: a pellet stove regulates the power ... can be better than a pellet boiler (did you confirm or not did?)

[mariepoussin]

I agree that justice has many more important things to manage!

It's a procedure that has been going on for 4 years ...

In fact, we had launched a procedure following many advice from you on the forum in 2012 (what recourse to boiler oversizing?).

I understood that it was better to undersize this type of device for optimal operation.

So I understand that it will be difficult to highlight a possible over-sizing?

For the moment the expert highlights:
- inadequate regulation constitutes an error in the design / construction of the installation with a clearly negative impact on the comfort of the accommodation,
- the absence of air supply constitutes an error in the realization of the installation likely to generate combustion faults,
- the interlocking of the inverted connection pipe constitutes a production error,
- smoke pipe in diameter 125 instead of 150 recommended by the manufacturer, this non-compliance constitutes an installation error,
- the sound intensity of the stove located under the master bedroom constitutes an installation error or at least a provision contrary to common sense,
- the position of the thermostat located in the most wasteful room constitutes an installation error,
- the absence of balancing constitutes a design error.

[Christophe]

a) The case of Pellets boilers is a little different because they are still more powerful than your stove. There is an oversizing of pellets when the heating engineer keeps the power of the old fuel oil boiler (I summarize but roughly this is it), that is to say that he sizes a Pellet boiler as a fuel oil or gas.

In addition, as I just asked did67: I think that a boiler regulates less well than a stove simply because the regulation loop is much more complex than a simple stove room thermostat and that I believe that pellet boilers have only 2 power modes (see only one like oil boilers, it depends on the manufacturer)


b) 15 kW if it is your only means of heating I can tell you (unless you have a very well insulated house not far from the passive so) that it is not much as power: are you too hot even when the stove is at a minimum? If this is not the case, there is no oversizing


c) Ok you have already commissioned an expert and there are obviously other faults in the installation, these can be defensible (especially if this does not comply with standards in place) ... but the point of over-sizing is in my opinion, to dismiss!

I think that an amicable procedure with rectification of work poorly done is more conceivable than a legal procedure taking into account the cost of justice and the damage, all in all, quite minor suffered! (a lawyer does not work below € 100 an hour ... I know some who are at € 500 ... so the calculation is quickly seen ...)

[Did67]

1) The "capacity" to modulate depends mainly on the mechanisms, I think.

What is true, and where I would agree with you, is that a stove operating by radiation / direct convection, has much less inertia and, from this point of view, is much easier to regulate / modulate.

A bit like a zodiac is easier to pilot than a liner!

2) I note that in the defects noted by the expert, some concern the manufacturer of the stove (inadequacy of the regulation, if it is that supplied with the stove by the manufacturer of the latter; noise level - which should have been in the notice, therefore the customer being warned, cannot turn around, unless the actual noise is much higher than that of the notice), others of the installer (duct of 125, absence of air supply, fitting to upside down ... There, in fact, the installer can be condemned to put it right - if he hasn't failed in the meantime).


One will hide behind the other.

It is therefore a cascade process: the installer cannot be held responsible for intrinsic faults in the device. And conversely, the manufacturer is not responsible for installation faults ...

3) The courts judge according to the "rules of the art" of the profession. Which are roughly what I wrote.


Another thing is the advice we can give on a forum, and which I have often given, to undersize (even if it is to be underpowered the 5 days in the 15 years to come where it will be - 20 ° decennial!). But this, it is not in any rule of art! A heating contractor must ensure that it heats up enough, even on these days.

Only the customer can ask him to put less powerful, after the heating engineer has informed him (moreover, the heating engineer, if he is careful, will ask a discharge eg on the estimate, asking to sign a text like: "I have been informed that the recommended power is 18 kW. But I expressly request that the heating engineer install the 12 kW model"). This is what I negotiated with my heating engineer, who clearly told me that according to the rules, it is 18 kW. I imposed 15 kw on him (otherwise, I did not buy). He didn't ask me for a discharge, but he should have. If I'm boring, I'll sue him the day he will be - 24 °! And he risks losing it, not being able to prove that it was I who asked!

A rule that we should all ponder: "The law is damn twisted!"

[Grelinette]

For the moment the expert highlights:
- inadequate regulation constitutes an error in the design / construction of the installation with a clearly negative impact on the comfort of the accommodation,
- the absence of air supply constitutes an error in the realization of the installation likely to generate combustion faults,
- the interlocking of the inverted connection pipe constitutes a production error,
- smoke pipe in diameter 125 instead of 150 recommended by the manufacturer, this non-compliance constitutes an installation error,
- the sound intensity of the stove located under the master bedroom constitutes an installation error or at least a provision contrary to common sense,
- the position of the thermostat located in the most wasteful room constitutes an installation error,
- the absence of balancing constitutes a design error.

All these points (some imprecise) are something to grind for lawyers who will be happy to argue judicially and provide a thousand and one reasons justifying this or that choice of installer.

That there are "faults on the part of the installer" is one thing (if indeed they are proven indisputably), but "to charge the mule" on points which it will be difficult to prove indisputable negligence is very uncertain, and all the more so since the facts put forward are not proof of proven harm but "possibilities of harm".
(Professionally, an "error" is not a "fault", especially when it comes to an installation in an old existing one).

The opposing party's lawyer will have no problem asking for proof that such choice by the installer has caused real damage ... and if in doubt ...

That said, Justice is like a Thermal Installation: it is complex and the end result is not always the expected!

I specify that I am neither a thermician nor a lawyer, and that I have no action in the company which made the thermal installation.
On the other hand, I come from a family of lawyers who have always confirmed to me (to their dismay) that "A bad arrangement is better than a good trial.

Given the case, a Justice conciliator might be good advice.

[Christophe]

That said, Justice is like a Thermal Installation: it is complex and the end result is not always the expected!

Exact ... the only certainty that you can have in court is that the lawyers' fees are expensive ... and to balance with the damage!

You told us about an investment of 5000 € which is low if we relate this to attorney fees say, 200 € / h ... which must be average in France.

In addition, the dossier is far from being 100% in your favor.

But what exactly are you looking for? A new installation? Upgrade / standards? A hypothetical financial compensation?

If it is the 3rd case: calculated on the basis of which damage? since the installation works?

It is not so easy to obtain damages: there must be concrete facts of the damage suffered.

Example your stove is broken for 2 months and you can neither heat nor wash: there there is a real quantifiable damage (Gender X euros per day of breakdown).

But a stove that works all the same quite well and which consumes can be a little too much, no quantifiable damage is estimable ... on the other hand to negotiate a restoration in conformity that yes.

[mariepoussin]

The installation of the hydraulic stove and 6 radiators with the smokehouse cost us 18000 euros.
The stove is regulated by a room thermostat supplied by the heating engineer.
For this price we would like things to be done in the rules of the art and that we can sleep during winter periods without being bothered by noise ...

[Gaston]

For this price we would like things to be done in the rules of the art and that we can sleep during winter periods without being bothered by noise ...

Still no harm linked to possible over-sizing (unless you assume that a smaller stove is less noisy, but that remains to be proven).

If you want to attack to obtain compensation for the other problems, that seems legitimate to me, but the dimensioning does not seem to me to be a major defect.

Let us not forget all the same that "a bad arrangement is better than a good trial" (Balzac)

[Christophe]

Ok 18 is not 000 okay.

If the hydraulic network and the radiators did not exist, it is a correct price (in the high but correct range)

Yes okay it has to work ok.

But as everyone says here: forget the point of oversizing.

For the noise, it was, a priori, given in the technical notice of the equipment, that you had to receive before the signature (well if I have to take out € 18 for a building site, I look at all the details and ask for the more info possible on the equipment that will be installed ... well that's how I reason ...).

Did this "noise" appear during installation or later?

[mariepoussin]

The installer announced 38 decibels, manufacturer's instructions supported.
Noise was one of our main concerns.
Upon start-up, a high noise level was observed with peaks at 63 decibels when the stove is operating at Max. I point out that there are no fans.