mcb / rcbo

[JohnW2]

Dohbut we don't notify MCB to RCBO changes After taking a deep breath, I said "but what about the discussion we had with the LABCs at the techtalk meeting and I thought we were notifying" He said "but I never agreed with them anyway because that's not what is called for in the regs - the LABC just make it up as they go along" My daughter (who is 28 ) patronisingly patted me on the head and said "don't worry daddy, you can't be expected to know everything"

That's what daughters are for (mine are 27 & 30), and sons! As you know, I'm probably 'with' him, but I also understand and respect your views.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh dear, where did go the years?

 

[JohnW2]

Oh dear, where did go the years?

Do I take it that you're not of a vintage which causes you to ask yourself that question on a very regular basis?!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If you do you are mistaken.

That was almost a C&G question.

 

[securespark]

No, it wasn't. There weren't enough double negatives in there.

 

[JohnW2]

Do I take it that you're not of a vintage which causes you to ask yourself that question on a very regular basis?!

If you do you are mistaken. That was almost a C&G question.

Goodness, what a language we (as well as C&G questions) have to cope with! Does this mean that if I 'took it' (that you were 'not of a vintage....'), I would be mistaken?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think so (My little girl is older than yours).

 

[JohnW2]

I think so (My little girl is older than yours).

Right - that's cleared up, then Mind you, mine could easily have been 10 years older if I'd 'started' younger!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[bernardgreen]

My daughter (who is 28 ) patronisingly patted me on the head and said "don't worry daddy, you can't be expected to know everything"

But like mine ( 30 years old ) I bet she still calls on daddy when she needs help with something technical.

The time to worry ( and be proud of them ) is when they sort out your problems.

 

[JohnD]

View media item 653

 

[sparkticus]

That's what daughters are for (mine are 27 & 30), and sons! As you know, I'm probably 'with' him, but I also understand and respect your views.

Thank you, as my son said last night, I was almost there, another 180 degress and I would have been right

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think you would probably see a problem if someone 'replaced' an RCD with a main switch, or a 6A MCB with a 32A one, wouldn't you?

Yes, but it's difficult to fine tune something that's supposed to work in the way that Schedule 4 does in order to have it deal with something fundamentally unlawful in the first place.

If proposed work contravenes P1 then it should never get as far as being matched with Schedule 4, and Schedule 4 does not have to be written in a way that successfully categorises something which must not be done in the first place.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but it's difficult to fine tune something that's supposed to work in the way that Schedule 4 does in order to have it deal with something fundamentally unlawful in the first place.

It's surely about 'policing', isn't it? One assumes that the whole point of notification is that it enables the PTB to examine work (or proposed work) which may be unlawful (non-compliant) - and therefore the need for notification is only removed for works which they feel (rightly or wrongly) are relatively unlikely to be done unlawfully (non-compliant with Part P). In an ideal world, eveything would probably be 'notifiable', thereby giving them the opportunity to scruitise all electrical works for compliance with Part P, but that would be impractical, so they attempt to taget those works which they feel are more likely to be non-compliant. MOT tests include checking of the tread of tyres, even though it would be unlawful to drive a vehicle to the test centre with bald ones.

If proposed work contravenes P1 then it should never get as far as being matched with Schedule 4, and Schedule 4 does not have to be written in a way that successfully categorises something which must not be done in the first place.

I agree that it would be inappropriate, and impractical, to attempt to list all the possible non-compliant works in a Schedule, but there's no need to do. If they 'successfully categorised' the lawful/compliant works which they felt did not need notification then, by exclusion, all other works (including unlawful ones) would, by default, be in the 'other' (notifiable category).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

But like mine ( 30 years old ) I bet she still calls on daddy when she needs help with something technical.

Of course - isn't that part of the respective job descriptions?

The time to worry ( and be proud of them ) is when they sort out your problems.

Very true; I now often seek advice from both my daughters - sometimes in relation to their respective professional roles (which is fair enough), but also sometimes in relation to just matters of 'life' (which is more worrying/a reason for pride!)

Kind Regards,John.

 

[Paul_C]

If they 'successfully categorised' the lawful/compliant works which they felt did not need notification then, by exclusion, all other works (including unlawful ones) would, by default, be in the 'other' (notifiable category).

But isn't that how it is fundamentally set up already? Part P of schedule 1 stipulates that all electrical work carried out in a dwelling must be done in such a way as to make reasonable provision for safety.

Schedule 4 lists the specific works which the government feels do not need to be notified, and thus, by default, all other works are notifiable. There is no inclusion of "notifiable non-compliant" works in schedule 4 because such works are already illegal by way of Schedule 1, Part P.

The main point of contention is surely just the extremely bad wording used throughout schedule 4 coupled with a lack of definitions of what some of the terms mean (in the legal sense), which results in the sort of debates about whether something is notifiable or not that we see in this thread and elsewhere.