17 edition PIR fault code

[FingRinal]

I'm starting to see the angle that you are coming from, but I don't really agree with it on the whole

If the main equipotential bonds were sized according to the 15th, and the certificate claimed compliance with the 16th, then it might indicate that the installer was ignorant of the standard to which he was supposedly installing to, and you ought to be on the watch out for other departures of a similar nature.

Exactly!!

In addition, you could also report the failure of the initial inspection and testing to pick up this deviation and thus the fact that the certification claims compliance with a standard when there was no such compliance (that would be instead of the usual one about there being no certification for the original installion then ) however this would a minor point in the grand sheme of things

I don't see it as my responsibility to report such things, unless specifically instructed (and paid) to do so by clients. It's very easy to nit-pick long afer the event and I've never been in favour of 'witch hunts'. I'm sure that the next few months will see a few things slipping through the net at the hands of some very competent electricians. Perhaps due to pressure, simple error etc. Code 1's might be different, especially those of the kind highlighted in recent prosecutions. Or perhaps numerous Code 2s for example.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps I need not have broght it up, rather just grabbed some popcorn, pulled up an armchair and waited for bas to stumble by this post....

Oh I'm just watching - I don't do PIRs.

Mind you - I am missing a cable clip on my main earth cable which is 20mm over (AFAIR) the guideline for an unsupported vertical run, which makes my entire installation unsatisfactory and means that I can't cook or pass judgement on how attractive a countryside view is, so that's probably just as well.

Save some popcorn - I might have some when I've finished my hotdog...

It's very easy to nit-pick long afer the event and I've never been in favour of 'witch hunts'.

 

[FingRinal]

It's very easy to nit-pick long afer the event and I've never been in favour of 'witch hunts'.

There is a very significant difference between encouraging, tricking, bullying people into poor, dangerous practice and passing judgement on an overall sound installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which doesn't affect overall safety (especially when one sees examples in the same installation of excellent quality work which must have taken great effort and determination to achieve and which would have resulted in a genuine unsatisfactory had it not been done.)

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand the difference. But as you say, you don't do it for a living so you can't possibly know or understand.

The debate last night, despite attempts to hijack it, was (in my opinion) a good one. Thanks to Gary and Adam.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand the difference.

No need, because I do understand the difference. I don't know why you wrote that though, as I don't know of anybody here who tries to encourage, trick or bully people into poor or dangerous practice.

But I do know of someone here who passed judgement on an entire installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which don't affect overall safety...

But as you say, you don't do it for a living so you can't possibly know or understand.

Can you please explain, logically, and without introducing any ad hominem fallacies, why that should mean that I am unable to understand the difference?

 

[FingRinal]

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand the difference.

No need, because I do understand the difference.

That's not the impression you're giving.

I don't know why you wrote that though, as I don't know of anybody here who tries to encourage, trick or bully people into poor or dangerous practice.

Look in the mirror.

But I do know of someone here who passed judgement on an entire installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which don't affect overall safety...

That would be following the guidance of the ESC. You have at least one Code 2 defect so your installation is Unsatisfactory. (whisper - don't tell your insurance company that you know your installation is unsatisfactory and that you've deliberately decided not to have remedial work undertaken. Also don't let them know you write published articles on the legalities of UK electrical installations as you won't be able to plead that you are as ignorant as you are ignorant).

But as you say, you don't do it for a living so you can't possibly know or understand.

Can you please explain, logically, and without introducing any ad hominem fallacies, why that should mean that I am unable to understand the difference?

You don't do it for a living so you wouldn't know!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand the difference.

No need, because I do understand the difference.

That's not the impression you're giving.

I think that it is, at least to people capable of rational thought.

I don't know why you wrote that though, as I don't know of anybody here who tries to encourage, trick or bully people into poor or dangerous practice.

Look in the mirror.

When I do that I see myself, so if that's what you meant then you must be claiming that I try to encourage, trick or bully people into poor or dangerous practice.

I do hope you can provide proof of that, and that this is not another one of your lies.

But I do know of someone here who passed judgement on an entire installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which don't affect overall safety...

That would be following the guidance of the ESC.

Well - then it was you that followed their guidance. And yet it is you who seems to be concerned about "passing judgement on an overall sound installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which doesn't affect overall safety"

You have at least one Code 2 defect so your installation is Unsatisfactory.

In saying that, are you not passing judgement on an overall sound installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which don't affect overall safety?

But as you say, you don't do it for a living so you can't possibly know or understand.

Can you please explain, logically, and without introducing any ad hominem fallacies, why that should mean that I am unable to understand the difference?

You don't do it for a living so you wouldn't know!

Err - that's not an explanation, it's a repeat of the same fallacy.

 

[FingRinal]

I feel sorry for you that you can't understand the difference.

No need, because I do understand the difference.

That's not the impression you're giving.

I think that it is, at least to people capable of rational thought.

No it isn't. But keep repeating it and I'm sure it will go away.

I don't know why you wrote that though, as I don't know of anybody here who tries to encourage, trick or bully people into poor or dangerous practice.

Look in the mirror.

When I do that I see myself, so if that's what you meant then you must be claiming that I try to encourage, trick or bully people into poor or dangerous practice.

Mirrors can't lie.

I do hope you can provide proof of that, and that this is not another one of your lies.

i can prove as much or as little as you can.

But I do know of someone here who passed judgement on an entire installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which don't affect overall safety...

That would be following the guidance of the ESC.

Well - then it was you that followed their guidance. And yet it is you who seems to be concerned about "passing judgement on an overall sound installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which doesn't affect overall safety"

Code 2 isn't minor. Code 2 on eathing and bonding too! Ouch!

You have at least one Code 2 defect so your installation is Unsatisfactory.

In saying that, are you not passing judgement on an overall sound installation which incorporates one or two minor errors which don't affect overall safety?

Who said it was 'overall' sound. Those are your words, no one elses. Assume what you like, it's your installation.

But as you say, you don't do it for a living so you can't possibly know or understand.

Can you please explain, logically, and without introducing any ad hominem fallacies, why that should mean that I am unable to understand the difference?

You don't do it for a living so you wouldn't know!

Err - that's not an explanation, it's a repeat of the same fallacy.

Are you not capable of grasping that one answer can provide a solution to two problems/ questions?