Montpelier Wood Stove Insert not drafting well
- Thread starter billme888
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
I can't believe they tried to get away with that! Has the owner of the stove shop seen this crappy install? I'd send him the pictures and ask him if he thinks this would pass inspection.
He IS the owner of the company...he's the one who did this job...and the one who called the cops to assist his guys to pull out the stove against my will...(and the evidence, if he were successful)....He knows once he pulls it out of my house, he's golden...
That gap certainly explains the poor draft. I'm sorry you are having this experience. As stated earlier, metal tape is not a suitable bandaid for a hot flue connection, particularly not at the flue collar. The draft issue does not appear to be a fault of the stove. It looks like the flue collar was not reversed prior to installation so that the angle matched the liner's approach angle.
From the manual:
3. Flue collar orientation: The flue collar may be oriented
in the vertical position or rotated 180 degrees
on the top of the stove resulting in a 26 degree backward
angle. If possible, determine beforehand which
orientation will work best for your application.
From the manual:
3. Flue collar orientation: The flue collar may be oriented
in the vertical position or rotated 180 degrees
on the top of the stove resulting in a 26 degree backward
angle. If possible, determine beforehand which
orientation will work best for your application.
billme888 said:
oh yes, most inserts are actually designed to be installed the way he tried it. and i am sure this one could be , too. there is nothing scientific about it: you get the liner to just above the outlet height, then push the insert in, and sueeze your hands into the narrow opening between the insert and your lintel, and wriggle it down into the outlet. sometimes you gotta use a bar to help pry it into place, but your insert has a better way.
... Summit...any ideas on why he tried to install it while already inside... instead of outside like the manual says...does it save him money...would it still be connected well enough to pass inspection if they'd aligned the thing that way? They spent at least two hours trying to make it connect by twisting the liner clockwise, then counterclockwise, then clockwise...one up on the top of the chimney, the other yelling up, now twist it the other way....etc....it was brutally frustrating.......wouldn't it been easier to just do it the way the manual describes? I'm pretty sure he's taking me to Small Claims Court...
billme888 said:
My honest opinion is that they probably had no idea that the flue outlet could be removed in such a manner to install the stove. I hate to say it, but my first couple years in the biz, i did not know many of the little tricks and secrets that applied to each individual product, and when we ran into a new product we just applied what we already knew about others to it.... most installers don't bother to look at the manual until they run into an issue. The only other reason he could have tried to install it the way he did would be if the lintel was in the way of being able to pull the flue collar back on the stove with the pipe attached, in which case he would have had to try to "fold" the flex pipe around the lentil, but looking at the pics, it seems he had enough room to make it happen. chalk it up to lack of product knowledge.
that's sad then, because he had a whole week between the original installation and the second time his guys came out to work on it, to crack open the manual and realize what he'd done wrong....but just chose to blame me for being unreasonable. Well, at least I feel comfortable in my case when we go to court but geez....what a waste of my time and money, the police's time that had to be called, and now the court's time when all he had to do is read ONE page of installation info... Thanks again to all you guys who've been so helpful...I don't know what I would have done without you... I'm calling the county now to find out about the permit that was never talked about...I need someone of authority to come look at this fiasco of an installation. I'm learning a lot this week...I'll keep you and the others informed....Bill
Get the county or town inspector over there asap. If there isn't one, get the fire marshal. You want documentation and witnesses. Has the dialog about the stove all been on the phone and in person? If so, summarize your concerns in a registered letter and send it out soon.
I called the city's Fire Marshall when they opened 90 min ago. I just got directed to an answering machine and left a message...no call back yet. I know I need this officially documented....I called the local police and asked if they could just send someone out to just take a photo..they said, no, it's a contract issue...take it up in Small Claims Court.. He already tried to pull this stove out of my house on Fri when he told his guys to pull it out, even after they told him I would not physically allow it...he said, do it anyway!! What makes me furious is that he intentionally closed up my view of the opening when he put the surround back on...then he started the test fire that has to be done before the job's signed off by the customer. Why would he conduct that test knowing that opening was there...??? Who does that?
and yes, all the correspondence between he and I after that initial day of installation has been by email..so I have a paper trail.. I knew after hearing his account of what happened in my house...and how it was so different than what had actually happened..that I would need to keep a record of everything.....I just have no one to give it to....
Judging from what I have read here and looking at your photos, if it comes to a day in court, you win.
Personally, I would email the photos to the guy and ask him to tell you if he would pay for such an installation if he were the customer. Of course you need to get an inspector of some reputable persuasion on your premises post haste. While he is there, run a video camera as he works. His audio alone should be condemning to the installer.
I don't see how you can lose here. May cost you more grief before, if you'll pardon the pun, "the smoke settles", but if there is any justice here, it will be served accordingly.
Best of luck, and keep us informed.
Personally, I would email the photos to the guy and ask him to tell you if he would pay for such an installation if he were the customer. Of course you need to get an inspector of some reputable persuasion on your premises post haste. While he is there, run a video camera as he works. His audio alone should be condemning to the installer.
I don't see how you can lose here. May cost you more grief before, if you'll pardon the pun, "the smoke settles", but if there is any justice here, it will be served accordingly.
Best of luck, and keep us informed.
Update: I finally reached my city's Bldg Inspection Section..He asked for the link of this thread to see for himself....His emailed response follows:
"I saw the pictures on the web site and I can see why smoke would come into the house instead of going out the chimney. Page 8 of the install manual shows how to connect the flue collar to the top of the wood stove. The flue collar is completely installed incorrectly. The position of the collar would not allow the flex liner adapter to seat properly which may have resulted in the installer’s frustration to adequately install the collar and resort to just trying to tape the darn thing together. We would have written a correction notice had a permit been obtained. A permit is required for this installation per the 2006 IMC. Section 106 (permits required). We also would have checked the contractor’s registration when they apply for permits. We do this because state law requires cities to verify contractor registration and we do this to protect the citizens against shoddy contractor activities within the city."
So, I now can sleep at night once again. I'm looking to find a competent installer who I'll pay from the remaining balance due the original contractor. I'll send the original contractor what's left over after I pay the second one.... That's my plan now..if he pulls me into court, his incompetence is obvious and now made a public record....and it would also be made public that he intentionally concealed the improper connection (by attaching the surround), then on his own accord, set a test fire in my house...all the time knowing it would smoke like crazy which it did......Why does one set a test fire unless you're trying to get the customer's acknowledgment that the job's done...?
I can understand not having read the manual before the first botched install, but his mistake came at that moment he made the decision to conceal the improper connection. While he was sitting next to the stove as it was smoking.... reading the manual for over 10 min, he obviously realized he'd done it wrong. He had the chance to say, I messed this up...I'll come back and do it right....sorry for the inconvenience...
Thanks for everything you guys...I can't thank you enough. I'll keep you advised...If he takes me to court I'll need some guidance from you guys, to make sure I cover my bases thoroughly.....Again...thank you!
Bill
"I saw the pictures on the web site and I can see why smoke would come into the house instead of going out the chimney. Page 8 of the install manual shows how to connect the flue collar to the top of the wood stove. The flue collar is completely installed incorrectly. The position of the collar would not allow the flex liner adapter to seat properly which may have resulted in the installer’s frustration to adequately install the collar and resort to just trying to tape the darn thing together. We would have written a correction notice had a permit been obtained. A permit is required for this installation per the 2006 IMC. Section 106 (permits required). We also would have checked the contractor’s registration when they apply for permits. We do this because state law requires cities to verify contractor registration and we do this to protect the citizens against shoddy contractor activities within the city."
So, I now can sleep at night once again. I'm looking to find a competent installer who I'll pay from the remaining balance due the original contractor. I'll send the original contractor what's left over after I pay the second one.... That's my plan now..if he pulls me into court, his incompetence is obvious and now made a public record....and it would also be made public that he intentionally concealed the improper connection (by attaching the surround), then on his own accord, set a test fire in my house...all the time knowing it would smoke like crazy which it did......Why does one set a test fire unless you're trying to get the customer's acknowledgment that the job's done...?
I can understand not having read the manual before the first botched install, but his mistake came at that moment he made the decision to conceal the improper connection. While he was sitting next to the stove as it was smoking.... reading the manual for over 10 min, he obviously realized he'd done it wrong. He had the chance to say, I messed this up...I'll come back and do it right....sorry for the inconvenience...
Thanks for everything you guys...I can't thank you enough. I'll keep you advised...If he takes me to court I'll need some guidance from you guys, to make sure I cover my bases thoroughly.....Again...thank you!
Bill
Question: Was an install permit obtained, either by you or the contractor? The inspector eludes that "if" a permit were obtained, he could act accordingly, and he "would" have filed a correction notice.
I don't read his email response as meaning he is on it. Have you heard more?
I don't read his email response as meaning he is on it. Have you heard more?
I went to get a permit today. They said I needed to find an installer first to put on the form...so that's what I'll do.....I'm sure there are many honest and competent installers in my area, although I wish there was a way to know for sure..., I'm sure my first one isn't the norm.... Once the job's done, they'll come out and check it out while my new installer's present.....sounds straight forward... I'll pay for the permit myself....I have a lead on someone who's actually installed Montpeliers...unlike the assurances of my former installer who was quick to tout his 15 yrs of experience.... must have been installing some other stove I suppose....I'll keep you guys posted...thanks..
here is the installers reply...seems we didnt get the whole story
sorry installer....! dave
Dave,
Please be advised that billme888 has not provided you with all the facts on his Montpilier insert. I am the owner/installer the company that provided this Wood Insert. The pictures you are seeing in his threads are of the liner and flue adapter's seperation after my employees attempted to remove the liner from the top of the chimney. It was clear billme888 was going to remain unreasoanble in drafting matter of his insert, and since billme888 obstruct our removal attmepts by asking the employees from his home, my company's only removal option, was to remove the 22' of liner and cap from the top of the chimney. However, the infamous connection to the stove was indeed so tight, that the liner ripped before the the connection at the stove. If you inspect the picture sent to you by billme888 you will see where the tape has torn and the adpter has dislodged. If you ask bilme888 he shoud tell you that there is no longer a cap or seal plate on that flue.
We have been in the business for over 16 years, we have come to the acceptance that we can please 99 percent of our customers, but there are some people you just can't please.
All of our liner connections are connected use self tapping screws, milpack cement, and we add allum tape to keep the connection snug while the milpack sealant sets up. This is common procedure on all stove liner connections. Also, if you inspect the picture sent by billme888 once again, you will see that the flue adpater has indeed been removed and re-installed to the 26 degree rear offset position. So by your logic, it is clear that my company is indeed familiar with the inner workings of this stove.
This drafting issue is nothing more that a common example of a negative pressure system inside the home and masonry chimney. The fireplace has been refaced with thick pillars and arches of culture stone, and the opening has been reduced in height by over 4" . This issue can be remedied, but the homeowner is unwilling to accept any negative pressure remedy procedures. Now you have him convinced that it is an install issue.
sorry installer....
! daveDave,
Please be advised that billme888 has not provided you with all the facts on his Montpilier insert. I am the owner/installer the company that provided this Wood Insert. The pictures you are seeing in his threads are of the liner and flue adapter's seperation after my employees attempted to remove the liner from the top of the chimney. It was clear billme888 was going to remain unreasoanble in drafting matter of his insert, and since billme888 obstruct our removal attmepts by asking the employees from his home, my company's only removal option, was to remove the 22' of liner and cap from the top of the chimney. However, the infamous connection to the stove was indeed so tight, that the liner ripped before the the connection at the stove. If you inspect the picture sent to you by billme888 you will see where the tape has torn and the adpter has dislodged. If you ask bilme888 he shoud tell you that there is no longer a cap or seal plate on that flue.
We have been in the business for over 16 years, we have come to the acceptance that we can please 99 percent of our customers, but there are some people you just can't please.
All of our liner connections are connected use self tapping screws, milpack cement, and we add allum tape to keep the connection snug while the milpack sealant sets up. This is common procedure on all stove liner connections. Also, if you inspect the picture sent by billme888 once again, you will see that the flue adpater has indeed been removed and re-installed to the 26 degree rear offset position. So by your logic, it is clear that my company is indeed familiar with the inner workings of this stove.
This drafting issue is nothing more that a common example of a negative pressure system inside the home and masonry chimney. The fireplace has been refaced with thick pillars and arches of culture stone, and the opening has been reduced in height by over 4" . This issue can be remedied, but the homeowner is unwilling to accept any negative pressure remedy procedures. Now you have him convinced that it is an install issue.
Wow, I guess we all should not jump to conclusions so fast and make sure we hear both sides. I'm still wondering why there was no permit pulled.
Todd said:
agreed, people are asking for opinions and we try our best to help, but the "full story" isn't always evident...
Dear Mr Contractor,
You can make all the false claims on this thread you wish trying to win public approval...it matters not...you've not perjured yourself yet in a court of law.....but you will, I'm sure of it ....and I look forward to it.
To all the others here:
I will not give away evidence I have on this man here in a public forum ...His post here is his attempt to get me to do that...You have my word that I will let you all know what the judge finds, whether it's favorable to me or not. Those of you who've helped me in the past can PM me if you wish, and I will explain what he's actually done.
Bill
You can make all the false claims on this thread you wish trying to win public approval...it matters not...you've not perjured yourself yet in a court of law.....but you will, I'm sure of it ....and I look forward to it.
To all the others here:
I will not give away evidence I have on this man here in a public forum ...His post here is his attempt to get me to do that...You have my word that I will let you all know what the judge finds, whether it's favorable to me or not. Those of you who've helped me in the past can PM me if you wish, and I will explain what he's actually done.
Bill
I'm making a moderator call here and closing the thread. Considering this thread is in the legal domain it seems prudent. The forum shouldn't be used to argue out a case. If there are strenuous objections or if Craig feels this is in error, it can be reopened. The final outcome can be posted in a new thread linked to this thread.
- Status
Similar threads
