Blogs - OPGO NEWS and OPINION

 
Date 24 February 2012
Location Hampshire Court Hotel, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG24 8FY

 
OPGO Barry Matthews (BM), Geoff Giltrap (GG), Graham Morrissey (GM), Ron Knight (RK), Martin Kelsen (MK), Paul Lerner (PL), Mike Walton (MW), Caitlinn Davison (CD)
GAS SAFE REGISTER Simon Ayers (SA), Phil Mason (PM), Sarah Hill (SH), Mark Rolfe (MR), Gabi Pearson (GP)
HSE Robert Hutty (RH)

"Taken at face value, CO-Gas Safety’s statistics for CO incidents and fatalities over the last 16 years paint a very dark picture for gas users and gas operatives alike, both of which appear to be risking their lives on a daily basis.

However, we need a bit more information than has been provided.

Do the figures of 622 deaths (av. 39 a year) and 4000 non-fatal injuries (av. 250 a year) relate only to gas? CO lobby groups sometimes amalgamate the figures for all fossil fuels for greater impact, but seem to expect only the gas industry to fund CO awareness initiatives.

We need to know how many of these deaths and non-fatal injuries were attributable to Gas Safe registered operatives, how many were due to unregistered or “illegal” operatives, and how many were caused by occupier error.

If the highest number of deaths or non-fatal injuries were attributable to Gas Safe registered operatives then perhaps this would indicate that either there is something wrong with the standard of training they have undertaken (and ACS is not working) or, despite being accepted on the Gas Safe Register as able to work safely with gas, they do not. Or are registered operatives working out of scope, because they do not undertake the necessary ACS modules due to the costs involved?

If most of the deaths and injuries were due to work done by unregistered installers, then that is a problem for HSE to deal with.

If occupier error is the cause of the highest number of deaths or injuries, then obviously all the money that is being spent on raising CO awareness is not having the desired result. Tents don’t have chimneys, but people continue to use barbecues and gas lamps in them; vents are regularly found to be blocked to stop draughts; servicing and maintenance isn’t carried out regularly; and At Risk warnings are routinely ignored. These gas users not only risk their own lives, but may be putting their family and friends at risk too. As Regulation 34 GIUSP 1998 states: “It may be an offence to use a gas appliance knowing it is at risk” – but how many gas users have been prosecuted in the last 16 years?

(Perhaps there is a case for having a central ‘At Risk’ Register so that gas operatives can report At Risk appliances and subsequently check to see if the necessary remedial work has been carried out prior to their next visit. If not, perhaps Regulation 34 needs to be enforced to remind occupiers of their responsibilities too.)

These questions need to be answered so that resources are targeted much more effectively."

Dear Mr Arnold

I am extremely concerned about the misleading way CO Gas Safety presents its statistics. Recent publicity of 622 deaths in 16 years with the fact that it is over 16 years buried deeper in the publicity, is not the normal way that mortality rates are presented. By comparison 8 million people approximately died from all causes over the same period. The fact that there are over these 16 years only about 20 deaths a year from carbon monoxide due to gas appliances is thus unfairly disguised, compared to about 500,00 people a year who die altogether incidentally.

As she uses this to push for measures, like annual servicing on all gas appliances to be made compulsory, this is not just a pedantic point.

Annual servicing on all gas appliances would probably cost 1.6 billion pounds extra over and above what is being spent now and might save an extra 8 lives at a cost of 200 million pounds per life saved. With that sort of money being spent you could just tax the populace and build 2 hospitals a year for 5 years and then run them I would think.

I would be pleased if you could pass this letter on to parliamentary members of the group for their consideration.

 

Regards

 

Paul Lerner

Follow up correspondance click on Read More.

Whilst we applaud the recent initiative by Baxi Group, whereby they will notify LABC via GSR on behalf of installers of their boilers (as will Viessmann it has recently announced), and send reminders to the customers when their boilers require an annual service with the installer's details listed, we would ask the HHIC to consult with its members so this initiative becomes the norm rather than the exception amongst other boiler and appliance manufacturers.

There has been much discussion regarding the lack of warranty cards returned(30/40%) and the fact that only 50% of installations are now notified through the GSR route and we feel this goes some way in addressing this problem. It could also have a significant affect on identifying illegal installations.
As a further incentive for installers to complete the warranty registration perhaps extended warranties should only be given on receipt of registration.

We would also like the HHIC to consider looking at the Benchmark commissioning certificate, by the way of triplicating it so that it can act as a warranty notification form and a certificate of compliance regarding Building Regulations. We feel that this will considerably cut down the amount of administration for all registered gas engineers.

 
Barry Matthews OPGO Chairman

Why is the UK always so far behind the rest of Europe, boilers have come a long way over the years, better, safer and more controllable and yet unvented cylinders have not moved with the boilers, or maybe more to the point Part G of the Building Regulations has not moved forward, my reason for bringing this up is I recently fitted a Viessmann 100 system boiler, very good boiler, now with these boilers and many other boilers on the market, you have the option of purchasing a DHW sensor to allow the boiler to control the cylinder temperature directly, this in my opinion is a far better and more accurate way to control the cylinder temperature, rather than using an old fashioned bi-metal strip as the way to control the temperature, Viessmann state that when using the DHW sensor with their boiler no 2 port valve is required, now this is correct in my opinion, the boiler management control will only heat the cylinder to the required temperature, with the old system you were relying on an external stat which could fail, so it needed to protect against the production of heat which could over heat the cylinder, now the cylinder we were installing, which was specified by the client, (otherwise this situation would not of arisen as I would of used my preferred cylinder), was prewired on the immersion and boiler overheat stat sides, I needed a port to insert my boiler sensor, but all the ports were full, I rang the manufacturer to ask which was the boiler over heat side as I wanted to remove it to install my sensor, but leaving the immersion overheat in place, they began a lecture about I MUST use the 2 port valve, I hung up, not going to listen to people who are stuck in their ways, I traced the wiring myself and removed the sensor that was not needed and placed the Viessmann sensor in, works a treat.

 

What I find most annoying about all this is this manufacturer and most other cylinder manufacturers who state Part G as a safety part of their cylinder installation, are the very same companies who when producing twin coil cylinders, for solar, provide you with two 2 port valve, one for the boiler side and one for the solar side, now the 2 port valve they supply is NOT suitable for the solar circuit, it cannot take the temperature, nor can it take the glycol, so is of no use to the installer, they also supply you with 2 x cylinder/overheat stats, now with the solar circuit you do need to run the solar pump via the overheat stat, to shut off the solar pump in the event of the cylinder reaching high temperatures, but why do they supply you with a overheat stat that is linked to a cylinder stat, so that if the stat gets adjusted the solar will stop its input early, the reason for this in my opinion is they simply want to supply what they already have, to save themselves costs, my other point is, as we all know heat rises, it’s not rocket science, so I would like to know why when they manufacture twin coil cylinders do they have a thermal cut out at the top for the boiler and a thermal cut out at the bottom for the solar, in my opinion this is wrong and is why I object to the technical of a manufacturer preaching to me about Part G safety, why have the solar cut off (overheat stat) at the bottom, if say for example the boiler stat failed and the boiler continued its input, at the set point the top overheat stat will trip, stopping the heat input from the boiler, BUT the lower stat may not of reached its trip temperature, which could allow solar input to continue which could overheat the cylinder, why do they not have the solar overheat stat and only a overheat stat at the top of the cylinder, so that it trips out at the same time as the top overheat stat, seems simple to me, but I believe the manufacturers just adapted their existing cylinders slightly to sell twin coils where they had to spend the least money and make the least manufacturing production changes to keep profits up, rather than starting from scratch with a new design, a bit like the first condensing boilers from the UK, small changes were made to try and produce condensing boilers with dire consequences, condense dripping onto the burner and causing corrosion, but then finally bigger changes were made, but only after a lot of installers switched to other brands from Europe who had already overcome these problems, the UK need to move with the times more quickly, Building Regulations need to be updated more frequently to accommodate changes in technology, we need to get rid of the old boy network who control things at the moment and are happy to cosy up to manufacturers to keep everything sweet and not rock the boat, changes are needed and if the UK ihas any chance to reach it CO reduction targets we need to embrace new technology, not sit on old school regulations that are outdated.

Lots of woes with the way National Grid operatives deal with low pressure problems.

Story 1

Called them out a couple of weeks ago to a property with 16mb at meter as I am required to do. Go back two weeks later and still 16mb . Terribly sorry will have to call them out again I say. Explain on the phone that they were out 2 weeks ago. Anyway the operative arrives and I have a chat with him. I explain the issues and say that I have heard that when they insert a new gas pipe through the old steel pipe it gives pressure problems due to reduced diameter. He agrees it does but tells me that they are under instruction from their managers that as long as there is 16mb at the meter they do not need to take any action.

Now to me that is all fine and dandy but the customer is having to wait a couple of hours every time I call round, and if I call again I am meant to notify them again. So if this is the case why is there no notification attached to the meter saying do not call NG out if 16mbar as has already been investigated. In these days of energy efficiency and CO emissions why is everybody's time and petrol being so wasted as well as stress and grief to the customer.

Secondly if they know that inserting pipe through original steel pipe is inadequate why are they allowed to do it?

Story 2

This sort of thing has happened to me on more than one occasion

Called out NG to attend 14mb at meter with everything run on maximum. Operative arrives with trainee. He virtually ignores me and is instructing trainee. We run the appliances and he says 14mb OK . I argue with him and he says that he is allowed to leave it. I say no you are not, I would like to speak to your manager. He refuses. We again get in a discussion and I say that the cut off point is 15mb and that is only at peak times which it wasn't in the middle of the day.

He then says to his traineee run three rings on the cooker and announces triumphantly that look you have 20mb now - that is all that I need to do. Its your pipe-work (not that I installed it) . I say no its not, that it is the pipe-work in from the road given that he had changed the governor already . Another argument ensues about the need for the meter to supply 70KW nett at the right figure. I finally get him to ring his manager although I could not speak to him . He orders him to get a team out to upgrade road supply.

Its frightening that this bloke was training some-one and could have left issues all over the shop.

And they think these people can investigate CO!

 
I would like to add that some operatives are excellent and the operative in the first story was very knowledgable and apologetic and said he would see what he could do but knew his manager would not allow an upgrade from the road.

Just a PS: One thing I am grateful for - a very recent change, is that for low pressure they no longer have to read you the interminable "Do not pass Go do not collect £200 notice." (no naked flames, no light switches on or off door and windows open etc)

Dear Chris,

Please see below an article highlighting the risk of lack of skirt ventilation.

Members of The Organisation of Professional Operatives (OPGO) have had concerns in this regard for several years. On their behalf we have raised the issue with Gas Safe Register, who tell us to follow unsafe procedures and issue a warning notice. We have also brought it up at the Gas Industry Liaison Group where the UKLPGA didn't have the courtesy to even give us a reply, but the HP&PHA at least advised that they would inform their members via their quarterly newsletter.

Up and down the country our members continually come across lack of skirt ventilation, yet this is never rectified and no one in the industry wants to take a proactive role in tackling this potentially dangerous ongoing situation.

If HSE is willing to prosecute, and cite lack of skirt ventilation in that prosecution, is it also willing to be proactive in trying to get to grips with what could turn out to be a major problem?

>From our members point of view, if the situation is "At Risk" under the GIUSP then this issue cannot be ignored by HSE and the industry ad infinitum; the other alternative is to downgrade lack of skirt ventilation to "NCS".

 

Plumber and mobile home park fined as residents left at risk

Date:
26 March 2010

An Essex plumber has been prosecuted for carrying out substandard and illegal work at a mobile home park, exposing residents to serious risk.
Harlow Magistrates' Court heard today how Michael O'Sullivan laid gas pipes underneath a property without ensuring there was proper ventilation.

The pipes passed through a brick base, which the mobile home sat upon, and the lack of ventilation meant any gas leak could have accumulated underneath the home and formed a deadly mixture.

Mr O'Sullivan was fined £1,000 with £500 costs and Sines Parks Ltd, the park management company which hired him to do the work, was also fined £2,500 with £2,000 costs.
Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Steve Hook said:

"If one of these pipes had leaked gas underneath the mobile home, it could have seriously endangered people's lives. It was extremely fortunate the poor workmanship was discovered before it was too late."

Worried residents at the mobile home site in Breach Barns in Galley Hill, Waltham Abbey contacted the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in early 2009 after discovering unsafe fittings on cylinders of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) used for heating and cooking.
Sines Parks Ltd, which owns and runs the park, had previously commissioned Mr O'Sullivan to carry out work on various gas fittings and pipes at the site.
Mr O'Sullivan was not registered to work on gas equipment and his work was found to be unsafe by HSE gas specialists investigating the complaints. HSE issued the self-employed plumber with an immediate prohibition notice, banning him from carrying out any further gas work until he was qualified and registered. HSE also warned all residents about his work.
At court today, Michael O'Sullivan, of Tillingham Court, Winter Way, Waltham Abbey, admitted breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 3(1) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.
Sines Parks Ltd, of College Road, Harrow, admitted breaching Regulation 4 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. The company had a duty to check that Mr O'Sullivan was registered.
The company owns 13 parks in the region. Residents own their own mobile home but Sines Parks Ltd retains ownership of the land and manages the utilities.
Inspector Steve Hook added:
"There is a reason the HSE operates the Gas Safe Register - working with gas appliances is difficult, specialised and potentially dangerous. Getting it wrong can cost lives.
"It is illegal for an unregistered person to carry out such work. When unqualified workers try to bypass the law in this way they are not only putting themselves at risk of prosecution and a large fine, they are also putting people's lives at risk.
"Companies also have a legal obligation to ensure anyone commissioned to work on gas equipment is legally qualified to do the job. It is easy to check if someone is registered with the Gas Safe Register and there is no excuse for failing to make that check."

Yes we have a duty under the GIUSP to issue warning notices, but our members also feel a moral duty to the customers in their care to create a level playing field, quite obviously putting right one property on a 100 unit site where all the other units have a lack of skirt ventilation isn't going to increase the safety of that site very much. Nationwide the numbers of non-compliant installations would be staggering based on OPGO members findings
Having highlighted this problem to the industry, including the HSE we would also feel a moral duty in the event of an incident involving skirt ventilation to publicise the fact when where and how it was brought to that industries attention.

OPGO members suggest, to at least get some action on this issue, that our industry should work with the insurance industry and point out to site owners and caravan/RPH owners that not only do they have a duty of care to other site owners (whereby, as in the report above, they could face prosecution in the event of an incident), but that if an incident occurred their insurance may be invalid if the skirt ventilation doesn't comply with our industry's requirements.

I look forward to your normal speedy reply.

Regards,

Barry Matthews

For some time I have been asking about incidents of CO alarms sounding and data from Emergency Services. This here from Government Research show the claims of there must be lots of low level of CO around are shown to be somewhat exaggerated. In particular the research of Ben Croxford has been shown not to be born out in reality as many installers suspected. One wonders whether those at the APPGSG have read this. We can only hope that the Merseyside research isn't equally buried due to the vast industry that profits from CO scaremongering.

Read below two extracts from report http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1324663

1) It must be reported that these incident values appear low when compared with (for example) projections that could be made from the Gas Appliance Check Project (Croxford 2006- 2007), which would indicate that up to 20% of dwellings offer a severe risk of CO poisoning. It must be said that from the experience of GaC, such a value of 20% seems very high for typical UK installations. The data from the Gas Emergency Service and anecdotal evidence from local installers who attend GaC for ACS training all support a much lower figure.

2) This projected CO occurrence value (0.2%) is important as it indicates that there are unlikely to be extremely large numbers of dwellings containing CO in low but still hazardous concentrations, which might be inferred from some studies of GB gas appliances. This is due to the fact that modern CO detectors integrate CO levels against time (see above). If there really were large numbers of dwellings containing low concentrations of CO then calls to the GES would be expected to be much higher.

Technical perspectives upon the risks of CO poisoning by appliance and fuel type
The effectiveness of CO detectors will now be discussed. To start with, some predictions will be made regarding future incident rates for modern EU Gas Appliance Directive (GAD) compliant gas appliances.
Likely long-term incident rates for modern gas appliances installed by competent operatives

The majority of CO incidents are known to be associated with elderly open-flued appliances installed before 1995. This is supported with evidence from the Gas Appliance Check Project (Croxford 2006/2007) which showed strong correlation between CO levels and age of the appliance, but more importantly, since the introduction of GAD, the overwhelming majority of new gas appliances are either room sealed (that is to say, products of combustion cannot easily enter the living space) or already have an on-board safety system monitoring air quality. Whilst examples of malfunction of this equipment can be identified (nearly always associated with gross installer or manufacturer error) the compulsory use of such second level safety systems has greatly improved appliance safety records across the EU. Such secondary safety systems are, for technical reasons, not available for solid fuel appliances and this will also be discussed further.

.''

 

Mr Lowe has had the opportunity to make his observations and the Organisation of Professional Gas Operatives would like to respond.

Sole traders, via the Association of Registered Gas Installers (ARGI), have supported CPA1 going in to core gas safety since the first Industry Liaison Group meetings in 2006. At that time we were told that it had to be a stand alone assessment, which we reluctantly accepted. To compound that mistake, the industry then decided firstly to impose CPA1 in April 2010 and subsequently postponed it to April 2012. If the voice of sole traders/SMEs had been listened to back in 2006 then this debate wouldn’t be happening.

Suspending categories of work suddenly makes those who do not work on boilers and fires which require an ECGA test as part of the manufacturers’ instructions unable to carry out their business – yet they have Certificates of Competence which are valid for five years.

This exercise shows that the system of a five yearly assessment period can be by-passed by self interested parties as and when they choose, without proper consultation with a large section of registrants who have always been, and still are, unrepresented at gas industry level. “Competent on day of assessment” indicates certificates of competence are but a mere snapshot in time and have no relationship to the level of knowledge actually achieved and implemented throughout the intervening five years.

As a measure of “on the job competence” Mr Lowe has illustrated perfectly in his letter that ACS assessments are, as many of us have been saying for years, an irrelavence to day to day working practices.

If certification bodies are going to put “valid until” on their certificates it had better mean something, otherwise the certificates are meaningless and they should stop the pretence and put “valid on day of issue only” so we all know where we stand. (incidently those members who checked cannot find a reference to "competent on day of assessment" on their certificates)

Answering the question of "do we need more frequent assessment", is that a tacit admission by the Certification Bodies that some of those exiting assessment centres may have fundamental flaws in their knowledge and shouldn't have been passed competent in the first place?

Clearly there is always a need to evaluate training requirements, which is why OPGO is involved in the Gas Industry Liaison Group meetings hosted by and held quarterly at EU Skills offices in Birmingham.

Dear Sirs,

Having seen Mr Poole's (marketing manager of Grahams) comments in the trade press, we feel it our duty to highlight misleading information.
When he claims “Engineers need to gain the CPA1 qualification to continue to be Gas Safe registered, and this needs to completed within the next six months”, that is clearly not the case.

 

"Certificates of competence" in boilers, water heaters and fires have been threatened to be withdrawn even though they still may have two years left on their five year validity.

 
To registrant organisations like the Organisation of Professional Gas Operatives (OPGO), this is totally unacceptable and we are looking to the certification bodies, such as NICEIC, to honour their five year contracts with registrants by paying for those who have time left on their five year "certificate of competence" to keep them competent as per Gas Safe Register's published requirements.

 
At this time it is wrong to mislead registrants in the way that this article has done until this matter is resolved to all the registrants’ satisfaction.

 
Furthermore, many OPGO members have taken free manufacturers’ training courses with Testo and Kane as part of their ongoing CPD, which have proved a far more rewarding experience than paying a certification body who, by sitting on the Strategic Management Board (SMB) of the gas industry, has an overriding interest in increasing its profits at our expense. We can now add corporate blackmail to their list of crimes against gas registrants.

 
As an example of NICEIC’s ineptitude and eye for profit over accuracy, in 2010 they advertised their Landord Gas Safety Certificates in the Registered Gas Engineer magazine, but OPGO members pointed out that registrants issue "reports" not "certificates" to landlords - a fact which Gas Safe Register confirmed in the next edition. That advert was not withdrawn for six months, despite it being inaccurate and misleading.

Perhaps Mr Poole would also like to explain how an assessment for competence (CPA1) becomes a qualification?

Yours sincerely

Barry Matthews
Chairman the Organisation of Professional Gas Operatives (OPGO)

Sir,

Q) When is a contract not a contract?

A) When you're Gas Safe Registered

Many of our members who have not taken the CPA1 Assessment have now received letters from Gas Safe Register informing them they will no longer be seen to be competent after April 2012 to work on boilers/water heaters and fires if they do not undertake the assessment prior to that date.

Yet many registrants have a "Certificate of Competence" valid for 5 years issued by Certification Bodies (CBs) that fall due well after April 2012.

Are we expected to pay so that the CBs do not fall foul of "Breach of Contract" Law?

We think the argument is all wrong; the CBs should be paying us to attend an assessment centre so that they can fulfill their contract with us which says we are competent for 5 years from date of issue, not some arbitrary time in the future when they decide to change the rules.

As both GSR and the CBs sit on the Strategic Management Board of the industry, one wonders if they should be allowed to be there when they allow conflicts of interest such as CPA1 and the reneging on 5 yearly certificates of competence to override common sense.

Yours faithfully

Barry Matthews
Chairman
The Organisation of Professional Gas Operatives (OPGO)

The Organisation of Professional Gas Operatives have concerns about the installation and safety of flueless gas fires.

Two prosecutions have now taken place following incidents relating to these fires, and because of guilty pleas wider questions about the safety of not just these fires but more importantly the Oxygen Depletion Sensor (ODS) have not been examined in court.

In both cases the Oxygen Depletion thermocouple advertised as a safety device failed to prevent the incident.

Comments on Article taken from the October 2011 issue of The Gas Engineer magazine, written by Karen Meadows a former environmental health officer - by Wim Rutjes - OPGO Membership Secretary.

Once again a gas operative has been prosecuted as a result of an incident relating to a flueless fire and yet again, because of a guilty plea, wider questions about the safety of not just this type of fire but, more importantly, the effectiveness of the Oxygen Depletion Sensor (ODS) have not been scrutinised in court.

Too often the tendency of the HSE and the Gas Safe Register is to attempt to lay the blame at the lowest level as it makes a neat conclusion for one person to be prosecuted when something has gone wrong and gives a measure of satisfaction to the victim’s family. However in many case the real causes go much deeper and are indicative of a systemic failure in the industry rather than purely one man’s responsibility. Flues in voids for instance represents such a failure of the system to recognise the danger and act appropriately before there was a major proliferation of these.

OPGO Member Paul Daley of Daley Plumbing and Heating has got the Last Word .. on Flues in Voids. Check out his YouTube video currently on our Front Page. His article appeared in Registered Gas Engineer Magazine August 2011 p 54. Thanks for permission to post on OPGO Paul.

The full article with pictures is here: http://www.registeredgasengineer.co.uk/docs/August_2011.pdf

“If we gas engineers do nothing, come december 2012 there will be a lot of customers with no heating or hot water”

This is a copy of the letter send By OPGO member Mark Overthrow, highlighting the poor consultation methods in the gas industry.

Trading Standards call in police after company soliciting money from Gas Engineers is referred to them by OPGO member.

OPGO has got 'The Last Word' in the Registered Gas Engineer Magazine (p 58), It got chopped around a bit by the magazine, and lost its title.

Here's the original article as submitted: ACS - Time For Change?.

Here's the article as published in the magazine (they chose the quote):

As an industry we often feel that the fight against the illegal and the 'bish bash bosh brigade' will never be won. Well where there is a will, there is a way. Here's how we could do it:

The campaign for cheaper access to British Standards, IGEM documents and UKLPG Codes of Practice has been successful. (Editors note - Our Chairman Wim Rutjes played an important part in the early days of the campaign).

Members have been in communication with the coroner to express their views. To read what has been said, or join the debate on this vital issue which will affect your working life why not become a member of OPGO?

A new, web-based organisation is aiming to become a distinctive voice for sole traders and small businesses in the UK gas industry. The Organisation of Professional Gas Operatives (OPGO) launched last October. Its website includes a forum where members can ‘socialise’, air their views and share information on technical issues.

Now I got your attention I will try and justify the title.

Some of you might be interested to know that OPGO were invited to Stephanie Trotters tea party at the House of Lords on the 25th Jan 2011.

It is very fashionable these days to extol the green virtues of products. The main message seems to be that you have to spend money to be green. This is a bit disappointing as I would like to spend less money. After all, if you save energy, you don't have to work as hard, or fork out money to repair the damage you are doing.