Sometimes they are limited by agreed service contract but they will def have a heat only solution for houses not suitable for a combi, they just won't push it due to margins etc....
Council contractor wants to replace conventional boiler with combi
- Thread starter dupfold
- Start date
Thanks all for your replies, very helpful info and much appreciated.
Just to clarify, one point I was trying to establish and query is if what the contractor said about converting to combi system being the cheaper option seemed valid? They said the council will want to opt for the cheaper option so that's why they will install a combi. Council opting for cheapest option is perfectly understandable, but seeing as even to a layman such as myself that to convert to combi system involves more work, this being the cheapest option doesn't make sense. Therefore I could point this out to the council, then they save money and I get to keep same system. Of course as a few of you have mentioned, they could have some sort of agreement that is unbeknownst to us, so just a case of waiting to hear back from them after they've received contractors quote and take it from there.
From the way the surveyor explained the process to me though, it would seem the council does have a choice, so doesn't appear to be any agreement set in stone. He advised he would send them a quote for the combi and wait to hear back from them. I asked him to also send quote for a simple like for like replacement, but he said it's not worth it as they likely won't go for it, but he will add a note to quote saying I'd prefer to stick with conventional. This just seems strange to me as in the current financial financial climate, I'm sure the council will opt for cheapest option, but if they don't have a quote for such option, they of course can't compare.
@ woody your post is very interesting thank you, but would this apply to council landlords/tenants as well? There are still parts readily available for the Solo, but after several months of untold visits and repairs, contractors have suggested a replacement.
@ HootingOwl do you mean combi would be cheaper to run considering my limit usage (question 1), or conventional? I've read a lot about people who've made the switch and made some considerable savings with a combi, but the most important info is always missing. Like for example from what boiler did they switch from, it's efficiency ratings and if their old boiler was working properly (in most cases probably not). It's therefore hard to estimate my own potential savings (if any) by making the switch. Both replacements will have A rating which will lead to savings way over my current boiler with D rating. I therefore tried to research and compare the sort of typical savings (again if any) when you compare a new conventional A rated boiler vs. a new combi A rated boiler, but couldn't find any info on this. Any ideas please?
@ flameport thanks for covering all questions. So I really wouldn't notice much difference in shower pressure with pump gone and combi in? I'd be happy with this, just as long as it's still half decent. I think this is one of my biggest worries, because I did spend a considerable amount on the shower install, so if shower was pants after getting a combi this would be a real disappointment. I did the same bucket/measuring jug test as requested, all be it with the cold tap because my hot water is very limited at the moment (just one of the on going problems). It measured 16.5 litres per minute.
I'm from the camp of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. As I've always had conventional boiler, it's all I've know and so I'm used to it. The only problem I've ever come across is the low pressure for potential shower. This is due to not having a loft so water tank is only as high as the top of airing cupboard. The shower pump however has well and truly taken care of that issue. The one plus combi potential has is the saving on bills, although still need to confirm. As said I've done a lot of research and read a lot of opinions, but as the subject is still so divided it's hard to come to a conclusion. Here's a list of pros and cons I've come up with for both in my particular situation. Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong on any or if there are any I've missed...
Combi pros
1. Potential saving on bills (questionable).
2. 'Instant' hot water.
3. No shower pump, so one less thing to go wrong.
4. Space saving (not really needed as I would only fill with junk).
Combi cons
1. If shower's lower pressure is not adequate, there are no 'cheap' fixes available such as adding pump. Only expensive unventilated cylinder could help (not sure if my knowledge is correct on this?).
2. Flow issues if more than one tap is used or washing machine on. Potential flow issues when other residents in the block use their water (as explained to me by surveyor)!
3. Season affects water temperature, ie have to wait even longer for the hot water to come through tap during winter. Shower might not be as hot.
4. Switching to combi could potential produce leaks in old pipework leading to nighmare of finding them (floorboards up etc).
5. Bigger boiler in kitchen with two more extra pipes added to the five already there. All exposed (not in nice cupboard) and already enough of an eyesore.
6. Potentially more unreliable than conventional (from reading users experiences).
7. Potential freezing over in adverse cold weather (not sure if this is still the case with latest models?).
8. Shorter lifespan than conventional.
Conventional pros
1. Shower remains as is, with pump, happy camper.
2. No extra unsightly pipes in kitchen, and no need for extra pipe runs upstairs.
3. Immersion heater backup.
4. Constant water temperature when more than one tap is used, and no flow fluctuations if washing machine is on.
5. Longer life span over combi.
6. Like for like replacement means no extra possibility of leaks in existing pipework.
7. Modular so things like pump and expansion vessel can be replaced interdependently from boiler. I'm not sure if my theory is correct on this, but I assume that combis each have their own bespoke internal parts which means you have to obtain those exact bespoke parts for repairs. I assume this would lead to higher repair costs (thinking ahead for the future here if I ever get to own my home).
Conventional cons
1. Potentially costs more to run (questionable).
2. Tanks take up space (not a problem for me).
3. Takes 10-15 mins to heat up water if needed outside set times (very rare occasion).
Whooha! I can write some can't I! I just try to cover all possible details to answer any of your own questions. Thanks for reading.
Just to clarify, one point I was trying to establish and query is if what the contractor said about converting to combi system being the cheaper option seemed valid? They said the council will want to opt for the cheaper option so that's why they will install a combi. Council opting for cheapest option is perfectly understandable, but seeing as even to a layman such as myself that to convert to combi system involves more work, this being the cheapest option doesn't make sense. Therefore I could point this out to the council, then they save money and I get to keep same system. Of course as a few of you have mentioned, they could have some sort of agreement that is unbeknownst to us, so just a case of waiting to hear back from them after they've received contractors quote and take it from there.
From the way the surveyor explained the process to me though, it would seem the council does have a choice, so doesn't appear to be any agreement set in stone. He advised he would send them a quote for the combi and wait to hear back from them. I asked him to also send quote for a simple like for like replacement, but he said it's not worth it as they likely won't go for it, but he will add a note to quote saying I'd prefer to stick with conventional. This just seems strange to me as in the current financial financial climate, I'm sure the council will opt for cheapest option, but if they don't have a quote for such option, they of course can't compare.
@ woody your post is very interesting thank you, but would this apply to council landlords/tenants as well? There are still parts readily available for the Solo, but after several months of untold visits and repairs, contractors have suggested a replacement.
@ HootingOwl do you mean combi would be cheaper to run considering my limit usage (question 1), or conventional? I've read a lot about people who've made the switch and made some considerable savings with a combi, but the most important info is always missing. Like for example from what boiler did they switch from, it's efficiency ratings and if their old boiler was working properly (in most cases probably not). It's therefore hard to estimate my own potential savings (if any) by making the switch. Both replacements will have A rating which will lead to savings way over my current boiler with D rating. I therefore tried to research and compare the sort of typical savings (again if any) when you compare a new conventional A rated boiler vs. a new combi A rated boiler, but couldn't find any info on this. Any ideas please?
@ flameport thanks for covering all questions. So I really wouldn't notice much difference in shower pressure with pump gone and combi in? I'd be happy with this, just as long as it's still half decent. I think this is one of my biggest worries, because I did spend a considerable amount on the shower install, so if shower was pants after getting a combi this would be a real disappointment. I did the same bucket/measuring jug test as requested, all be it with the cold tap because my hot water is very limited at the moment (just one of the on going problems). It measured 16.5 litres per minute.
I'm from the camp of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. As I've always had conventional boiler, it's all I've know and so I'm used to it. The only problem I've ever come across is the low pressure for potential shower. This is due to not having a loft so water tank is only as high as the top of airing cupboard. The shower pump however has well and truly taken care of that issue. The one plus combi potential has is the saving on bills, although still need to confirm. As said I've done a lot of research and read a lot of opinions, but as the subject is still so divided it's hard to come to a conclusion. Here's a list of pros and cons I've come up with for both in my particular situation. Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong on any or if there are any I've missed...
Combi pros
1. Potential saving on bills (questionable).
2. 'Instant' hot water.
3. No shower pump, so one less thing to go wrong.
4. Space saving (not really needed as I would only fill with junk).
Combi cons
1. If shower's lower pressure is not adequate, there are no 'cheap' fixes available such as adding pump. Only expensive unventilated cylinder could help (not sure if my knowledge is correct on this?).
2. Flow issues if more than one tap is used or washing machine on. Potential flow issues when other residents in the block use their water (as explained to me by surveyor)!
3. Season affects water temperature, ie have to wait even longer for the hot water to come through tap during winter. Shower might not be as hot.
4. Switching to combi could potential produce leaks in old pipework leading to nighmare of finding them (floorboards up etc).
5. Bigger boiler in kitchen with two more extra pipes added to the five already there. All exposed (not in nice cupboard) and already enough of an eyesore.
6. Potentially more unreliable than conventional (from reading users experiences).
7. Potential freezing over in adverse cold weather (not sure if this is still the case with latest models?).
8. Shorter lifespan than conventional.
Conventional pros
1. Shower remains as is, with pump, happy camper.
2. No extra unsightly pipes in kitchen, and no need for extra pipe runs upstairs.
3. Immersion heater backup.
4. Constant water temperature when more than one tap is used, and no flow fluctuations if washing machine is on.
5. Longer life span over combi.
6. Like for like replacement means no extra possibility of leaks in existing pipework.
7. Modular so things like pump and expansion vessel can be replaced interdependently from boiler. I'm not sure if my theory is correct on this, but I assume that combis each have their own bespoke internal parts which means you have to obtain those exact bespoke parts for repairs. I assume this would lead to higher repair costs (thinking ahead for the future here if I ever get to own my home).
Conventional cons
1. Potentially costs more to run (questionable).
2. Tanks take up space (not a problem for me).
3. Takes 10-15 mins to heat up water if needed outside set times (very rare occasion).
Whooha! I can write some can't I! I just try to cover all possible details to answer any of your own questions. Thanks for reading.
Last edited:
I think you'll have no problem arguing your case with the council! 
I'm surprised they don't just fix the Solo, they are a simple boiler with generally only three components that fail, all of which are still readily available. PCB, Air Pressure Switch and Fan. If all three were replaced, it would probably last longer than a brand new combi. OK it's not condensing, but I've yet to meet anyone that has replaced a fan assisted non condensing boiler, with a condensing one that claims it has given them any significant savings in running cost.
As above - if the council called Baxi out on a fixed price repair, they'd have your boiler up and running for about £300. The deal with fixed price repair is that you pay one price, and Baxi keep throwing parts at the boiler until it works again. I believe they even guarantee the repair for a year. This will cost the council considerably less than replacing your boiler, and you will suffer considerably less disruption. Everybody wins