Notifiable work ??

JohnW2 · 11 Feb 2016

ban-all-sheds said:
JohnW2 said:

you surely must understand that the OP's comment related to the rules and bureaucracy etc. associated with Part P

Click to expand...

There are none.

Good Grief. I really don't understand why you so often pretend that you don't understand what people mean because of pedantic matters of wording. Participation in a forum like this is a 'leisure activity', not a professional writing situation, so it's ridiculous to expect people to spend all the time they would examining and considering the precise words they use in their posts in the way that one would when writing in a professional context. Maybe you should think of this place more like an exchange of words in a pub!

Whatever, I presume you are quibbling about the words "associated with". You know as well as the rest of us is that what was meant was matters such as the 'notification rules' in the Building Regs - so what is gained (apart from maybe some odd sense of self-satisfaction) by pretending that you don't? If you want to spend your time discussing the precise and accurate use of language, I am sure that you could find appropriate places for such discussions.

Kind Regards, John

PBC_1966 · 11 Feb 2016

If one really wanted to be pedantic about linking the word "shambles" with Part P, as in the actual wording of Part P itself, separate from any associated issues of the Building Regulations, one could question why the writers saw fit to legislate that the regular 240V mains supplies in homes should be installed with "reasonable provision for safety," but left it so that - from the point of view solely of Part P - one could install a transformer and distribute, say, 1200V around the house with the installation being as dangerous as you like.

ban-all-sheds · 12 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
Good Grief. I really don't understand why you so often pretend that you don't understand what people mean because of pedantic matters of wording.

Good grief. I really don't understand why you so often pretend that you don't understand the importance of saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Maybe your personal lackadaisical attitude is what informs your belief that the people who write the Wiring Regulations don't say what they mean or mean what they say.

Participation in a forum like this is a 'leisure activity', not a professional writing situation, so it's ridiculous to expect people to spend all the time they would examining and considering the precise words they use in their posts in the way that one would when writing in a professional context. Maybe you should think of this place more like an exchange of words in a pub!

Maybe you should think that there is quite a difference between "examining and considering the precise words they use in their posts in the way that one would when writing in a professional context" and neither knowing nor caring about the difference between a requirement for safety and a requirement to notify.

Think of the MOT analogy. Who would you rather share the roads with - drivers whose cars are safe, but don't have an MOT because they don't like the regime of having to have one, or drivers whose cars are unsafe because their dislike of the regime of having to have an MOT has led them to pay no heed to anything to do with vehicle roadworthiness?

Part P must never, ever, EVER be conflated with notification, self-certification, Competent Person schemes etc. It really must not.

Whatever, I presume you are quibbling about the words "associated with". You know as well as the rest of us is that what was meant was matters such as the 'notification rules' in the Building Regs - so what is gained (apart from maybe some odd sense of self-satisfaction) by pretending that you don't?

Probably very little.

But that does not alter the validity of my position, and if just one person, just once, realises that he is required to do non-notifiable work safely then my actions will have been worthwhile.

If you want to spend your time discussing the precise and accurate use of language, I am sure that you could find appropriate places for such discussions.

If you want to throw your lot in with people who do not think at all about what they are saying, and if you want to disparage those who advocate a bit of thought, I'm sure you would find the GD forum full of like-minded knuckle-draggers.

crystal ball · 13 Feb 2016

ban-all-sheds said:
crystal ball said:

Good old BAS galloping along on his high horse, jumping to conclusions and dishing out careers advice to boot,

Click to expand...

I did not jump to conclusions - I took what you said the be what you meant.

Perhaps you could try, in future, to write what you mean, and to learn to be accurate and precise.

John and PBC understand what I am saying, I have worked in the industry for 40+ years and in environments with far more stringent regulations than part p so am no stranger to sticking to the rules, but the amount of different replies to my simple question somewhat proves my point - its a pile of poo.

Click to expand...

And there you go again - quite clearly describing a requirement to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering them from fire or injury as a pile of poo.

I don't take career advice from meddling amateurs.

Click to expand...

Will you take advice on writing clearly and accurately from someone who knows more about it than you?

And for the avoidance of any doubt, this is not pointless pedantry. People who do what you do put out the message that all of the things that the Building Regulations have to say about electrical work should be dismissed. Not just the notification. Not just the Competent Person schemes. ALL of them.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz what a tedious state of affairs, you should really try and get out more, over 54 000 posts that's worrying

ban-all-sheds · 13 Feb 2016

And the reason I should give any credence to advice from someone so hugely inferior to me is what, exactly?

stillp · 13 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
Maybe you should think of this place more like an exchange of words in a pub!

Perhaps we all should. Are you in the habit of criticizing strangers' style of communications in your local?

JohnW2 · 13 Feb 2016

stillp said:
JohnW2 said:

Maybe you should think of this place more like an exchange of words in a pub!

Click to expand...

Perhaps we all should. Are you in the habit of criticizing strangers' style of communications in your local?

I didn't initially realise, but that is an amazingly ambiguous (and, I presume, at least semi-rhetorical, and maybe a little sarcastic!) question! I've read it several times and have ended up about 50:50 in reading it as being 'for' or 'against' me (or, conversely, 'against' or 'for' BAS)!!

If it's what you're asking (and, as above, I'm far from convinced that it is!) .... whether in the pub or anywhere else (except when being paid to critically review written material!), I do not criticise people for poor grammar, lack of precision in the use of English, spelling, typing etc. - but I might criticise people who treated others in that way ... and I might also have something to say to someone who told the person (s)he was talking to that they were "hugely inferior" to him/her! Does that even partially answer your question?

Kind Regards, John

PBC_1966 · 13 Feb 2016

ban-all-sheds said:
OK - at this hour I'm not going to do it, but tomorrow or the next day I'll quote various parts of the Building Regulations, substituting "homeowner" for "person carrying out the work", and show you just how wrong you are.

I said homeowner in this particular instance since it fits the situation, but it doesn't have to be the person who actually owns the property. It could be a tenant with permission from the landlord to do the work, it could the appointed manager of the property with similar authority from the owners to carry out such work, and so on. The point is that the "person who intends to carry out building work" doesn't necessarily mean the person who is physically using the tools to do the work.

PBC_1966 · 13 Feb 2016

ban-all-sheds said:
And I suggest you re-read the exchange we have already had about that, as you seem to have a problem remembering things.

Not half as much as a certain person who now berates anyone and everyone about the supposed "immorality" of not notifying but has trouble remembering that he, himself, was once suggesting that people do just that.

JohnW2 · 14 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 said:
The point is that the "person who intends to carry out building work" doesn't necessarily mean the person who is physically using the tools to do the work.

Of course it doesn't. Let's face it, if it's a major project (extension, renovation etc.), the notification will be for the entire project, and no one person is going to be physically doing all of the work (building, electrical, plumbing etc.).

Kind Regards, John

ban-all-sheds · 14 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 said:
ban-all-sheds said:

And I suggest you re-read the exchange we have already had about that, as you seem to have a problem remembering things.

Click to expand...

Not half as much as a certain person who now berates anyone and everyone about the supposed "immorality" of not notifying but has trouble remembering that he, himself, was once suggesting that people do just that.

We've had this discussion before.

I increasingly feel that on the one hand you spend a lot of time, and sometimes some desperate measures, trying to get me to change my mind, or my position on some things, and yet when you find an example of where I have changed my mind on something you do nothing but bring it up, repeatedly, as if it is wrong for a person to change their mind or their position.

I have told you before, and I will tell you again, that yes, I have moved on that issue.

I have told you before, and I will tell you again, that no, I cannot point to any Damascene moment associated with that change.

Now - you have a choice. You can either accept that I do not deny, and have never tried to deny, that I have said different things in the past, and that I am in no way "forgetting" that, and you can grow up, move on and stop lying to people about what I do or do not remember, or you can wait for the next occasion and again behave like a pathetic little &()"&$^#@ who tries to make out that nobody must ever be allowed to change their views on anything.

ban-all-sheds · 14 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 said:
ban-all-sheds said:

OK - at this hour I'm not going to do it, but tomorrow or the next day I'll quote various parts of the Building Regulations, substituting "homeowner" for "person carrying out the work", and show you just how wrong you are.

Click to expand...

I said homeowner in this particular instance since it fits the situation, but it doesn't have to be the person who actually owns the property. It could be a tenant with permission from the landlord to do the work, it could the appointed manager of the property with similar authority from the owners to carry out such work, and so on. The point is that the "person who intends to carry out building work" doesn't necessarily mean the person who is physically using the tools to do the work.

1) Apologies for not having delivered on schedule - other activities have taken quite a bit longer to complete than planned. Console yourself that Mrs Sheds is far more p****d off about that than you are.

2) I will deliver, and it will be quite clear from what the Building Regulations say that that is exactly what they mean.

3) And you will then twist, and turn, and wriggle, and simply refuse to accept the idea that words which plainly say something do mean what they plainly say.

ban-all-sheds · 14 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
Of course it doesn't. Let's face it, if it's a major project (extension, renovation etc.), the notification will be for the entire project, and no one person is going to be physically doing all of the work (building, electrical, plumbing etc.).

I should give you advance warning that you may very well need to be able to show where I have said that the homeowner/householder/building manager/tenant/whoever MAY NOT do the notification on behalf of someone else, if that makes sense.

THRIPSTER · 14 Feb 2016

I do not understand why the good people on this forum continue to let Hassle Bland abuse people in this way. If this were to take place on another forum, it might result in the perpetrator's removal. The number of posts and aggression indicate to me that the person responsible is probably ill and house bound. He uses this forum as a lure and enjoys conflict. We are only making his condition worse by continuing to respond. This is despite the value of any contribution he may have to make.

Regards

JohnW2 · 14 Feb 2016

I doubt very much whether he is either ill or housebound - but he clearly does enjoy (and, one assumes, gets some sense of satisfaction from) aggression and conflict, and gets progressively worse if he does not feel that he is 'winning'. Despite possible appearances, I, for one, certainly respond less frequently, and more briefly, than I did in the past - and I certainly agree that 'not responding' is usually by far the best way to deal with (and frustrate!) people who behave like this.

The sad thing, and presumably also the reason he's still here (despite his behaviour), is that he has the potential to be a very valuable contributor to the forum - but we unfortunately seem to have been seeing progressively less evidence of that in recent times.

Kind Regards, John

diynot

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.

Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

Notifiable work ??

Similar threads