What with the recent revelations (to me) here about the real regulations and the positions of the CORGI people, would it have been lawful for you to have simply reconnected the boiler for a short while until it was replaced or repaired?
I assume it was working before, he did not say it would become more dangerous, and that you are "competent" enough in the circumstances to recognise any dangers.
I once asked about a conflict of opinion between CORGIs, and the only known (to my informant, a CORGI himself) dissent case was where the landlard's CORGI inspector condemned the appliance, the householder/tenant was also CORGI registered and reconnected it. The tenant won. Somewhere "oop north".
Which begs the larger question, or rather two of them - assuming a CORGI person has condemned an appliance, what does that mean? Does it have any legal force?
Long before CORGI I installed a gas fire in a friend's living room, and it worked merrily for many years. When the CORGI bit came in the then landlord (friend now owns the property) 's CORGI condemned the fire because there wasn't a dedicated ventilator with the right cm^2 area.
Now the room has many slots and holes in the windows and doors, it is in no way modern in terms of air circulation, it's an old room and would need total refurbishment before lack of ventilation ever approched becoming a problem, and besides the fire goes up a chimney (with a much greater area), it is more for effect and a "glow" than for room heat.
In this case I regard myself as competent, and I think the law would too - so can I legally reconnect the fire, overriding the CORGI's condemnation based on an irrelevant rule?
Ta,