No, I think you need to ensure your bonding is up to scratch and the installation should also be inspected, tested and certified before being placed into service, basically the fundamental requirements of chapter 13.
DIY Electrical Installation Work
- Thread starter robel
- Start date
Sponsored Links
OK.
But what about work done by people who are not able to inspect, test & certify?
You seem to be trying to make compliance with the whole of BS 7671 mandatory when it clearly is not.
Why not? What reasonable provision(s) are not covered?
Sponsored Links
Firstly, define your resonable provisions and then define your measurement of them. (You have referred to BS7671 so we will consider this standard only).
If you are going to adopt a 'standard' in order to accomodate the above, then you adopt the standard. You don't cherry pick the parts of the standard that you wish to ignore for whatever reason.
Chapter 1 of BS7671 is the most important part of the standard. It sets out the Scope, Object and Fundamental Principles of the whole Standard. The other Chapters list Regulations so that you can comply with the Scope, Object and Fundamental Principles of the Standard.
If you take a Chapter out of context, what purpose does it serve? To which standard and which purpose is, for example, Chapter 4 Protection For Safety set out? How do you know that you have implemented Chapter 4 correctly unless you implement it in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 1?
Does Chapter 4 tell you what Protection For Safety means? No. It details a description of the measures that are available for the protection of persons, property and livestock against the hazards that may arise from the use of electricity. (pg. 10 BS7671)
Of course, you can cherry pick and come up with your own standard.
But if you do, why should anyone else accept it? Why would someone assume a liability for such a made up, hotch-potch standard?
I agree that LABC might be responsible for testing and certifying the work, but it is still the responsibility of the DIYer to set out the Design and to complete the Construction.
How is the Inspector and Tester to inspect and test without a Design to refer to? If you are going to use a 'blanket' design standard i.e. BS7671 and IEE OSG, then all of both of them must be applied.
Chapter 6 consists primarily of Initial Verification. The greater part of which involves 'non-testing' verification. GN3 expands on this and details a lot more 'visual' verification than 'testing' verification. Therefore, Chapter 6, in part, is relevant as the DIYer should be 'verifying' as the installation is constructed (during erection). 610.2 makes an explicit reference to Chapter 1.
Now, there is no requirement to comply with BS7671 (unless in the case of defining a Special Location ), but you have to ask yourself how will you convince LABC that your Design and Contruction meets the requirements of Part P? You might decide to embark on a lengthy and expensive course of action to prove your point, but the decision rests with LABC so all your effort could be a complete waste.
Of course, LABC might accept your cherry picking of BS7671. Who knows? But whether they do or not is a different argument to whether they should.
It's a better bet to demonstrate compliance with BS7671 as a whole than to cross your fingers and hope your LABC will be weak on the matter.
If you are going to adopt a 'standard' in order to accomodate the above, then you adopt the standard. You don't cherry pick the parts of the standard that you wish to ignore for whatever reason.
Chapter 1 of BS7671 is the most important part of the standard. It sets out the Scope, Object and Fundamental Principles of the whole Standard. The other Chapters list Regulations so that you can comply with the Scope, Object and Fundamental Principles of the Standard.
If you take a Chapter out of context, what purpose does it serve? To which standard and which purpose is, for example, Chapter 4 Protection For Safety set out? How do you know that you have implemented Chapter 4 correctly unless you implement it in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 1?
Does Chapter 4 tell you what Protection For Safety means? No. It details a description of the measures that are available for the protection of persons, property and livestock against the hazards that may arise from the use of electricity. (pg. 10 BS7671)
Of course, you can cherry pick and come up with your own standard.
But if you do, why should anyone else accept it? Why would someone assume a liability for such a made up, hotch-potch standard?I agree that LABC might be responsible for testing and certifying the work, but it is still the responsibility of the DIYer to set out the Design and to complete the Construction.
How is the Inspector and Tester to inspect and test without a Design to refer to? If you are going to use a 'blanket' design standard i.e. BS7671 and IEE OSG, then all of both of them must be applied.
Chapter 6 consists primarily of Initial Verification. The greater part of which involves 'non-testing' verification. GN3 expands on this and details a lot more 'visual' verification than 'testing' verification. Therefore, Chapter 6, in part, is relevant as the DIYer should be 'verifying' as the installation is constructed (during erection). 610.2 makes an explicit reference to Chapter 1.
Now, there is no requirement to comply with BS7671 (unless in the case of defining a Special Location
), but you have to ask yourself how will you convince LABC that your Design and Contruction meets the requirements of Part P? You might decide to embark on a lengthy and expensive course of action to prove your point, but the decision rests with LABC so all your effort could be a complete waste.Of course, LABC might accept your cherry picking of BS7671. Who knows? But whether they do or not is a different argument to whether they should.
It's a better bet to demonstrate compliance with BS7671 as a whole than to cross your fingers and hope your LABC will be weak on the matter.
That's not a problem with CORGI, or the regime, or the "style" of the regime - it's merely one aspect of the legislation.
It doesn't regulate, it merely grants, or denies, registration and renewal of registration, and does so according to the authority given to it by the HSE.
When why mention it?
The onus is upon you to explain your "No.".
You're wrong.
You're right.
The onus would be on someone else to show that the provisions of the cherry-picked standard were not reasonable.
BS7671 is also a made-up, hotch-potch standard.
Or to achieve a safe result in any safe way of his/her own choosing.
Why don't you ask the person doing the I&T?
You're right. Again! It could become a habit if you're not careful.Now, there is no requirement to comply with BS7671 (unless in the case of defining a Special Location
I think we all know, really.
Amazingly, I agree with that.
To regulate an activity or process is to control it, usually by means of rules or laws.
So Corgi controls the process of registration and continued registration by means of the rules given to it by HSE - thereby regulating who can or can't do something as laid down by the HSE.
Loosely, I agree, which is why I said that CORGI doesn't do that.
CORGI maintains a register - nothing more, nothing less.
Nope - it's a simple administrative role, carried out by a bunch of glorified clerks. CORGI has spun the role into something bigger in order to sustain its involvement, but in the end has failed in that attempt.
Hmm. I wonder what you think CORGI does when someone who isn't registered does what registration would permit them to do.
And I wonder what you think CORGI does when someone who doesn't even qualify for registration does something they're not supposed to do.
Whatever you might think the actions are, it's a long way from what anyone else would call "regulation".
The HSE regulates; CORGI just fills in forms.
A simple question was asked, to which a simple answer of 'no' was given. The questioner then asked 'why' I replied no. I then answered. I'm very sorry that this confused you.
Isn't the onus on you to prove I'm wrong
??Any fool can do that.
The onus is on you to convince the person who will assume liability that it is OK for them to assume liability. If you can't convince them, they won't accept liability and your work doesn't get passed. Argue it all day long if you want, but if you want someone else to pass your work, you need to convince them.
Your opinion of the British Standard is irrelevant and your declaring it serves no purpose in this discussion.
And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you are going to use 'any' safe way, then you need to specify it so it can be verified that it complies with the relevant Regulations you intend to comply with.
It is up to the Designer to specify, not the Inspector. If you wish to adopt another standard, then you must specify the standard and the inspection and testing requirements required to comply with that standard. Furthermore, you must specify the Design so that the Inspector can verify that the design has been complied with and that it complies with the requirements of the standard.
The answer being no, which makes your above points either meaningless or deliberately obdurate.
Corgi regulates those activities or actions that the HSE require them to do under the terms of their contract.
That is not the same as saying they do not regulate anything.
Your opinion of the employees of Corgi or your opinion of the work activities they carry out are nothing more than your opinion - which you are entitled to have but which others will decide are of relevance or not.
The flippancy of your tone towards Corgi suggests a degree of disgruntlement.
Let's not go down that tired old route of you pretending that you're sorry, and we both know that neither of us is confused.
The onus is still on you.
No.Isn't the onus on you to prove I'm wrong
You have a good point, but if you're right then there is no onus whatsoever to prove it to you, or anyone else on this topic.
I didn't express an opinion, and I wasn't being derogatory, but perhaps this revealed that you were attempting to be.
It's a fact that the IEEE has no elected authority, and BS7671 is not a mandatory standard. The Wiring Regs evolved over the years, having been originally "made up", and continued to be "made up". They aren't debated in Parliament, and aren't legislatively ratified.
Gladly. This is hypothetical, of course, but if I were a DIYer doing my own electrics then I would comply with The Building Regulations, both generally and with all its specific parts, sections, paragraphs, and sub-paragraphs. The Building Regulations use the words "reasonable provisions" and "safety", so my "provisions" would be "reasonable", and I would ensure that "safety" was paramount.
In that case your question must have been rhetorical, so I retract my answer.
"No" isn't a valid answer to the question "Who knows?".
I sincerely doubt it.
I don't have any opinion of them personally - the fact is that they do a clerical job, and they don't do it very efficiently. And I mean that quite sincerely.
Sincerely, please show me where I was being flippant.You originally said:
It's "CORGI", not "Corgi", although not for long. And I don't have any reason for being disgruntled, since I have nothing to do with anything that CORGI does.Then you said:
No, but you do need to prove it to whomever is the decision maker. Either you will convince them or you won't.
Mostly irrelevant.
Meanwhile, back in the real world....Good luck with your approach. Good luck with convincing anyone who has to 'certify' or 'verify' your compliance with the Building Regs (and put their liability - job- on the line in return for your unspecified, unprovable 'reasonable provisions').
I will convince them. Be assured. Be very assured.
Hardly irrelevant, since you brought up the matter of standards being "made up".
I've never had any trouble with BCOs in the past, and never needed any luck, but thanks for your well wishes.
_________________
You still haven't b-a-s's question.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
Sponsored Links
