Testing night storage heaters

ban-all-sheds said:
OK - you should not have fitted those storage heaters.
At least that part's clear. But now...

What part of my work was notifiable?

And, if it was notifiable, what is your reason for thinking that I shouldn't have done it?

There seem to be quite a few assumptions in your thinking b-a-s - the kind of thinking that's more dangerous than anything I did today. I started with an open mind, a readyness to be educated, and a painstaking approach to testing. Can you claim the same? And I did this in the face of some so-called experts on this forum pontificating and implying that the testing had no value.

Are you all freemasons or summink?
 
Sponsored Links
nickyross said:
ban-all-sheds said:
OK - you should not have fitted those storage heaters.
At least that part's clear. But now...

What part of my work was notifiable?
They are fixed appliances are they not? If not, then installing them is not notofiable, but AFAIK storage heaters are fixed appliances.

And, if it was notifiable, what is your reason for thinking that I shouldn't have done it?

There seem to be quite a few assumptions in your thinking b-a-s
True - I am assuming that you did not notify LABC in advance that you were going to to install these heaters, as you are obliged in law to do as you are not competent to self-certify.

The law, in this respect, is a complete ass, but whilst I would not have raised a peep if it had been your house, in this case it is not - it's a property being let on a commercial basis. Whoever owns it should check their insurance very carefully to see what it says about using qualified electricians.
 
ban-all-sheds said:
They are fixed appliances are they not? If not, then installing them is not notofiable, but AFAIK storage heaters are fixed appliances.
No arguments with that, but all I've done is mount them on the wall, follow the manufacturer's instructions, and then test them. Oh, and heave a lot of bricks around - possibly I could have been arrested for indecent amounts of heavy breathing in the shared corridors.

ban-all-sheds said:
True - I am assuming that you did not notify LABC in advance that you were going to to install these heaters, as you are obliged in law to do as you are not competent to self-certify.
I am competent, I'm just not qualified and not registered; there's a difference.

ban-all-sheds said:
The law, in this respect, is a complete ass, but whilst I would not have raised a peep if it had been your house, in this case it is not - it's a property being let on a commercial basis.
So let me get THIS straight - you're not interested in safety per se, only the law. May I ask what qualifies you as competent enough to interpret the law AND to act as a policeman, and yet at the same time disrespect it so far as to call it an ass?

ban-all-sheds said:
Whoever owns it should check their insurance very carefully to see what it says about using qualified electricians.
That's almost verbatim what my invoice says, a copy of which has gone to the NICIEC chappie with the bad back. Once again - too many assumptions on your part.
 
nickyross said:
ban-all-sheds said:
They are fixed appliances are they not? If not, then installing them is not notofiable, but AFAIK storage heaters are fixed appliances.
No arguments with that, but all I've done is mount them on the wall, follow the manufacturer's instructions, and then test them.
(b) after the definition of "dwelling-house" insert -

" "electrical installation" means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer's side of the electricity supply meter;";


ban-all-sheds said:
True - I am assuming that you did not notify LABC in advance that you were going to to install these heaters, as you are obliged in law to do as you are not competent to self-certify.
I am competent, I'm just not qualified and not registered; there's a difference.
You are not legally considered competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.

ban-all-sheds said:
The law, in this respect, is a complete ass, but whilst I would not have raised a peep if it had been your house, in this case it is not - it's a property being let on a commercial basis.
So let me get THIS straight - you're not interested in safety per se, only the law.
What a bizarre statement.

May I ask what qualifies you as competent enough to interpret the law
The ability to read.

AND to act as a policeman,
¿Que?

and yet at the same time disrespect it so far as to call it an ass?
I'm sorry - I didn't realise that knowing what the law says means that I have to agree that it is a good law.

ban-all-sheds said:
Whoever owns it should check their insurance very carefully to see what it says about using qualified electricians.
That's almost verbatim what my invoice says, a copy of which has gone to the NICIEC chappie with the bad back. Once again - too many assumptions on your part.
Somehow I don't think that sending an invoice to a NICEIC electrician is going to get round the fact that whoever owns that building has allowed an unqualified person to carry out electrical installation work in contravention of the Building Regulations.
 
Sponsored Links
ban-all-sheds said:
(b) after the definition of "dwelling-house" insert -

" "electrical installation" means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer's side of the electricity supply meter;";
The heaters do not become "on the consumer's side of the electricity supply" until they become connected to that supply - except for a temporary connection, for testing purposes, this has not been done by me and will not be done by me.

ban-all-sheds said:
You are not legally considered competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.
I don't agree with your interpretation - the wording of section 0.8 of the BRs is follows:
It is not necessary to give prior notification of proposals to carry out electrical installation work to building control bodies in the following circumstances: a. The proposed installation work is undertaken by a person who is a competent person registered with an electrical self-certification scheme authorised by the Secretary of State.

The key word there is "registered", so your ability to read is fallable.

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
The law, in this respect, is a complete ass, but whilst I would not have raised a peep if it had been your house, in this case it is not - it's a property being let on a commercial basis.
So let me get THIS straight - you're not interested in safety per se, only the law.
What a bizarre statement.
Not as bizarre as yours, in bold above.

ban-all-sheds said:
May I ask what qualifies you as competent enough to interpret the law
The ability to read.
If you had the ability then you would have actually read it mate.

ban-all-sheds said:
AND to act as a policeman,
¿Que?
What's the purpose of you posting on this topic? To tell me the law? And what now, since it turns out that I know it better than you?

ban-all-sheds said:
and yet at the same time disrespect it so far as to call it an ass?
I'm sorry - I didn't realise that knowing what the law says means that I have to agree that it is a good law.
So, your motivation for posting on this topic was to illustrate that you know the law? Well, that's backfired somewhat.

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
Whoever owns it should check their insurance very carefully to see what it says about using qualified electricians.
That's almost verbatim what my invoice says, a copy of which has gone to the NICIEC chappie with the bad back. Once again - too many assumptions on your part.
Somehow I don't think that sending an invoice to a NICEIC electrician...
Read it again - I sent a copy to the spark, and the original to the owner.

ban-all-sheds said:
... is going to get round the fact that whoever owns that building has allowed an unqualified person to carry out electrical installation work in contravention of the Building Regulations.
Well that's your unqualified opinion, based on a load of unsubstantiated assumptions, leading you to a conclusion from which you're refusing to back down.
 
nickyross said:
The heaters do not become "on the consumer's side of the electricity supply" until they become connected to that supply - except for a temporary connection, for testing purposes, this has not been done by me and will not be done by me.
Oh what a sillybilly I am. I could have sworn that you started out by saying "I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters"

I do wonder though if what you did still counts as installing, because you did connect them to the supply. It may have been temporary, and it may now have been disconnected, but the law does not mention temporary connections as being exempt.

But it seems perfectly reasonable to recognise intentions, and yours, clearly, was not to complete the installation of the heaters. Shame that you wrote what you did....


ban-all-sheds said:
You are not legally considered competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.
I don't agree with your interpretation - the wording of section 0.8 of the BRs is follows:
It is not necessary to give prior notification of proposals to carry out electrical installation work to building control bodies in the following circumstances: a. The proposed installation work is undertaken by a person who is a competent person registered with an electrical self-certification scheme authorised by the Secretary of State.

The key word there is "registered", so your ability to read is fallable.
Nobody is infallible, but in this instance I am not mistaken in either my reading or my comprehension.

You are not registered with an electrical self-certification scheme authorised by the Secretary of State.

Therefore you are not legally considered competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
The law, in this respect, is a complete ass, but whilst I would not have raised a peep if it had been your house, in this case it is not - it's a property being let on a commercial basis.
So let me get THIS straight - you're not interested in safety per se, only the law.
What a bizarre statement.
Not as bizarre as yours, in bold above.
At no point have I said, or implied, that anything you have done is unsafe. At no point have I said, or implied that you should not have installed these heaters* because of safety concerns.

My point all along has been that there are laws governing what you did*, and you contravened them. How you think that equates to me saying I'm not interested in safety beggars belief.

*Except, of course, that contrary to your original statement it seems that you didn't install them..

ban-all-sheds said:
May I ask what qualifies you as competent enough to interpret the law
The ability to read.
If you had the ability then you would have actually read it mate.
I have read it. And understood it.

ban-all-sheds said:
AND to act as a policeman,
¿Que?
What's the purpose of you posting on this topic? To tell me the law? And what now, since it turns out that I know it better than you?
What basis is there for that claim?

ban-all-sheds said:
and yet at the same time disrespect it so far as to call it an ass?
I'm sorry - I didn't realise that knowing what the law says means that I have to agree that it is a good law.
So, your motivation for posting on this topic was to illustrate that you know the law? Well, that's backfired somewhat.
My motivation was to tell you that you shouldn't have done what you claimed you had done.

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
Whoever owns it should check their insurance very carefully to see what it says about using qualified electricians.
That's almost verbatim what my invoice says, a copy of which has gone to the NICIEC chappie with the bad back. Once again - too many assumptions on your part.
Somehow I don't think that sending an invoice to a NICEIC electrician...
Read it again - I sent a copy to the spark, and the original to the owner.
OK.

Somehow I don't think that sending an invoice to the owner of the building on which you advise him to check his insurance is going to get round the fact that he has allowed an unqualified person to carry out electrical installation work in contravention of the Building Regulations.

Except, of course, that contrary to your original statement it seems that you didn't carry out such work.

ban-all-sheds said:
... is going to get round the fact that whoever owns that building has allowed an unqualified person to carry out electrical installation work in contravention of the Building Regulations.
Well that's your unqualified opinion, based on a load of unsubstantiated assumptions, leading you to a conclusion from which you're refusing to back down.
My assumptions were perfectly valid, given the information that you had provided.

That they turned out to be invalid because of a misleading statement that you made is not my fault.
 
ban-all-sheds said:
nickyross said:
The heaters do not become "on the consumer's side of the electricity supply" until they become connected to that supply - except for a temporary connection, for testing purposes, this has not been done by me and will not be done by me.
Oh what a sillybilly I am. I could have sworn that you started out by saying "I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters"
Well although you meant that to be sarcastic, you are indeed a silly billy. You made assumptions and jumped to conclusions, all in pursuit of telling that me that you thought I'd broken the law. I haven't, but even if I did, the topic was never intended to invite your view on the matter, or on a point of law. My intention has never been to circumvent the law, but to work within it and in everyone's best interests.

ban-all-sheds said:
I do wonder though if what you did still counts as installing, because you did connect them to the supply. It may have been temporary, and it may now have been disconnected, but the law does not mention temporary connections as being exempt.
Noted, but the temporary connection was not via the new wiring (to the connection units) but via a plug top to an existing switched outlet - not a change to the installation.

ban-all-sheds said:
But it seems perfectly reasonable to recognise intentions, and yours, clearly, was not to complete the installation of the heaters.
Quite so.

ban-all-sheds said:
Shame that you wrote what you did....
Not so. I stand by what I wrote. The shame is that you obsessed about the letter of the law, and my posting, without understanding the spirit of it.

ban-all-sheds said:
Nobody is infallible, but in this instance I am not mistaken in either my reading or my comprehension.
I'm content to disagree with you.

ban-all-sheds said:
You are not registered with an electrical self-certification scheme authorised by the Secretary of State.
This much is true, and was never disputed matey.

ban-all-sheds said:
Therefore you are not legally considered competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.
This statement is a non-sequitor. The law requires that the installer be a competent person who is registered. It does not follow that in not being registered I am not competent. The point is that a registered person must be qualified in certain respects, and that those qualifications are considered proof of competence. It does not follow that absence of those qualifications is proof of incompetence, nor does the law intend to imply such a conclusion.

ban-all-sheds said:
At no point have I said, or implied, that anything you have done is unsafe. At no point have I said, or implied that you should not have installed these heaters* because of safety concerns.
Irrelevant - what you said is in bold, above.

ban-all-sheds said:
My point all along has been that there are laws governing what you did*, and you contravened them.
Nope - you're wrong. But you're entitled to be.

ban-all-sheds said:
How you think that equates to me saying I'm not interested in safety beggars belief.
You said that you would not have objected if the work was on my own house. Your [mistaken] interpretation of what I was doing has a safety implication that is no less severe, merely less illegal, when carried out on my own house. This is why I said you had no interest in safety, merely in riveting your flag to the letter of the law.

Your inability to read beyond those letters is what betrays your inability to interpret the law - this is a job for the justice system. Even jurors, who ARE invited, do not interpret the law.

ban-all-sheds said:
*Except, of course, that contrary to your original statement it seems that you didn't install them..
Except, of course, that to my original statement is still correct.

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
May I ask what qualifies you as competent enough to interpret the law
The ability to read.
If you had the ability then you would have actually read it mate.
I have read it. And understood it.
Nope - you misunderstood it.

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
AND to act as a policeman,
¿Que?
What's the purpose of you posting on this topic? To tell me the law? And what now, since it turns out that I know it better than you?
What basis is there for that claim?
I refer you to all of the above.

ban-all-sheds said:
So, your motivation for posting on this topic was to illustrate that you know the law? Well, that's backfired somewhat.
My motivation was to tell you that you shouldn't have done what you claimed you had done.
I didn't ask you to tell me, nor did anyone else appoint you to tell me - in this sense you're acting as an quango policeman.

ban-all-sheds said:
Somehow I don't think that sending an invoice to the owner of the building on which you advise him to check his insurance is going to get round the fact that he has allowed an unqualified person to carry out electrical installation work in contravention of the Building Regulations.
In this case, your thinking, which is not based on any law, is muddled. I'm not trying to "get round" anything, 'cos there's nothing that needs getting round.

ban-all-sheds said:
Except, of course, that contrary to your original statement it seems that you didn't carry out such work.
I carried out the work that I said - it was all abundantly clear to everyone before you stuck your oar in.

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
... is going to get round the fact that whoever owns that building has allowed an unqualified person to carry out electrical installation work in contravention of the Building Regulations.
Well that's your unqualified opinion, based on a load of unsubstantiated assumptions, leading you to a conclusion from which you're refusing to back down.
My assumptions were perfectly valid, given the information that you had provided.
This is also your opinion, and isn't of any relevance.

ban-all-sheds said:
That they turned out to be invalid because of a misleading statement that you made is not my fault.
Not so - you assumed that LABC was not informed, based on no information. You still don't know whether or not you were right, but it doesn't matter because you made an invalid (i.e. groundless) assumption.
 
Quote Quote Quote :LOL:

While testing as you did, you proved the heater and the heaters extreamely short flex works.

You didn't make sure the DP switch on the wall was functioning and connected correctly, you didn't make sure the cable from the CU to the DP switch was intact and connected etc etc etc.

I always 'look' for the resistance of the storage heater elements at the CU, and get the apprentice to turn the heater on and off to ensure we are looking at the correct one.

I regularly go and fault find inside storage heaters, replace elements, charge controls, DP switches etc etc etc, aswell as fit new ones and new circuits. I have never tested in the way you do, even when fault finding. I use my test kit, and am more than happy to drive the 50 or so miles back to base, knowing it will work with out having bodged 240v to it.
 
Lectrician said:
While testing as you did, you proved the heater and the heaters extreamely short flex works.
Thank you - that's EXACTLY what I was supposed to be doing!

Lectrician said:
You didn't make sure the DP switch on the wall was functioning and connected correctly, you didn't make sure the cable from the CU to the DP switch was intact and connected etc etc etc.
Correct - once again you've confirmed that I did what I was employed to do and didn't do what I was neither employed nor legally entitled to do.

Lectrician said:
I always 'look' for the resistance of the storage heater elements at the CU, and get the apprentice to turn the heater on and off to ensure we are looking at the correct one.
Fine - if the non-apprentice hadn't f*cked his back up then he would have been there instead of me anyway.

Lectrician said:
I regularly go and fault find inside storage heaters, replace elements, charge controls, DP switches etc etc etc, aswell as fit new ones and new circuits. I have never tested in the way you do, even when fault finding.
Did. The way I "did", not the way I "do".

Lectrician said:
I use my test kit, and am more than happy to drive the 50 or so miles back to base, knowing it will work with out having bodged 240v to it.
I'm delighted for you. When I become qualified, and when I have test kit, then no doubt I'll be doing that. Until then, I won't.
 
nickyross said:
Well although you meant that to be sarcastic, you are indeed a silly billy. You made assumptions and jumped to conclusions, all in pursuit of telling that me that you thought I'd broken the law.
If I made any assumption it was that you were telling the truth. I didn't "jump" to any conclusion - I simply took you at your word when you said "I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters".

I didn't realise at the time that what you say cannot be trusted.

I haven't, but even if I did, the topic was never intended to invite your view on the matter, or on a point of law.
This is an open discussion forum - anything you post here is an invitation for anyone in the world to comment. If you don't like that, then don't come here and post. Note that I said nothing until, based on the position that you had been truthful, it appeared that you had installed fixed electrical equipment in premises that were to be let to tenants. As you are not qualified to do that, my "point of law" is that you could well have invalidated the landlord's insurance.

the temporary connection was not via the new wiring (to the connection units) but via a plug top to an existing switched outlet - not a change to the installation.
Do you really not see how "I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters" appeared?

ban-all-sheds said:
Shame that you wrote what you did....
Not so. I stand by what I wrote.
You said you had installed these heaters.

This was not true.

Why do you want to stand by a statement that was not true? How can you stand by a statement which you later indicated, more than once, was not true?

The shame is that you obsessed about the letter of the law, and my posting, without understanding the spirit of it.
I am not obsessed with the letter of the law, which was why I said what I did about what my attitude would have been had you done what you had claimed in your own home. Which is why, if you look at any of the posts I've made in this forum, and elsewhere, I have consistently said that it is of no concern to me if people break the law, but that I do firmly believe that people should be fully aware of what the law says and that any decision to break it should be an informed one.

It wasn't until what you claimed to have done created the risk of insurance problems that I tried to point out to you that what you'd claimed to have done was unlawful.

ban-all-sheds said:
Therefore you are not legally considered competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.
This statement is a non-sequitor.
No - it is exactly what the law means. I didn't notice at the time (apologies - it was late), but you pasted a quote from "section 0.8" of the Building Regulations. Neither Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531 The Building Regulations 2000 nor Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3210
The Building (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2004 contain a section 0.8 or the words you quoted.

I'm not sure that your "understanding" of the law counts for much when you're not reading, or at least not quoting from, the law.

The law requires that the installer be a competent person who is registered. It does not follow that in not being registered I am not competent.
It follows that you are not considered competent in law to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations, which is what I said.

The point is that a registered person must be qualified in certain respects, and that those qualifications are considered proof of competence. It does not follow that absence of those qualifications is proof of incompetence, nor does the law intend to imply such a conclusion.
You have completely failed to understand the difference between being competent in its everyday meaning, and being considered in law to be competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations. You could be the most competent electrician in the world, but if you are not registered with one of the self-certification schemes the law does not regard you as competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.

ban-all-sheds said:
At no point have I said, or implied, that anything you have done is unsafe. At no point have I said, or implied that you should not have installed these heaters* because of safety concerns.
Irrelevant - what you said is in bold, above.
Irrelevant? It is absolutely relevant. You are claiming that because I raised concerns about the legality of what you claimed to have done in a building which was to be let to tenants, but that I would not have bothered to raise them if you'd done this work in your own home means that I'm not interested in safety.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are entirely rational.

ban-all-sheds said:
My point all along has been that there are laws governing what you did*, and you contravened them.
Nope - you're wrong. But you're entitled to be.
I am wrong insofar as you did not in any meaningful way contravene any laws. But we keep coming back to your opening statement: "I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters".

If that had been true then you would have contravened the law.

ban-all-sheds said:
How you think that equates to me saying I'm not interested in safety beggars belief.
You said that you would not have objected if the work was on my own house. Your [mistaken] interpretation of what I was doing has a safety implication that is no less severe, merely less illegal, when carried out on my own house. This is why I said you had no interest in safety, merely in riveting your flag to the letter of the law.
More irrationality. I can see little value in discussing this point any further unless you can show me where, in anything I have written here, I said that you should not have done what you had claimed because of safety implications, or that I would not have been concerned about safety if you'd done it in your own home.

Your inability to read beyond those letters is what betrays your inability to interpret the law - this is a job for the justice system. Even jurors, who ARE invited, do not interpret the law.
I'm being very careful to base everything I say on what is written in the law. You're the one taking statements from Approved Document P (not the law) and interpreting it in a way that shows you don't understand what is meant by the term "competent person" in this context.

ban-all-sheds said:
*Except, of course, that contrary to your original statement it seems that you didn't install them..
Except, of course, that to my original statement is still correct.
So now you are saying that you did install them?

First you said you did, then you said you didn't, now you are saying that you did.

Which is it?

When I pointed out to you the relevance of the law to the installation of fixed electrical equipment you quickly clarified that you had not installed them because "The heaters do not become "on the consumer's side of the electricity supply" until they become connected to that supply - except for a temporary connection, for testing purposes, this has not been done by me and will not be done by me"

Was that not true?

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
May I ask what qualifies you as competent enough to interpret the law
The ability to read.
If you had the ability then you would have actually read it mate.
I have read it. And understood it.
Nope - you misunderstood it.

ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
AND to act as a policeman,
¿Que?
What's the purpose of you posting on this topic? To tell me the law? And what now, since it turns out that I know it better than you?
What basis is there for that claim?
I refer you to all of the above.
And I likewise refer you. You don't know what the significance is of registration with a self-certification scheme. You don't even know the difference between the law and the Approved Document.

I didn't ask you to tell me, nor did anyone else appoint you to tell me
This is an open discussion forum - anything you post here is an invitation for anyone in the world to comment. If you don't like that, then don't come here and post.

In this case, your thinking, which is not based on any law, is muddled. I'm not trying to "get round" anything, 'cos there's nothing that needs getting round.
Well - you do seem to keep changing your mind about whether you installed these heaters or not, but if we go with the likeliest situation, which was that you did not "install" them in an "electrical installation" sense, then you're right, there is nothing that needs getting round.

But when I first raised the issue, I could only go on the basis of "I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters" as at the time I had no reason to think that what you had written was untrue.

My advice regarding the owner checking his insurance policy was based on the distinct possibility that it contains clauses which say something like "all electrical installation work shall be carried out by a qualified electrician", or "all electrical installation work shall be carried out by a contractor registered with NICEIC", or "all building work done shall conform to the relevant Building Regulations".

You were the one who thought that if his insurance did say that then you advising him to check somehow made it alright.

ban-all-sheds said:
Except, of course, that contrary to your original statement it seems that you didn't carry out such work.
I carried out the work that I said - it was all abundantly clear to everyone before you stuck your oar in.
You said that you'd installed the heaters. Installing them, as you later clarified, means permanently connecting them to the supply. I think this is reasonable - if someone employed an electrician to install some storage heaters, and all he did was screw them to the wall, and did not connect them to the supply, I don't think they would regard them as "installed".

nickyross said:
The heaters do not become "on the consumer's side of the electricity supply" until they become connected to that supply - except for a temporary connection, for testing purposes, this has not been done by me and will not be done by me.

nickyross said:
I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters
As you pointed out, you haven't.

Well that's your unqualified opinion, based on a load of unsubstantiated assumptions, leading you to a conclusion from which you're refusing to back down.
My assumptions were perfectly valid, given the information that you had provided.
This is also your opinion, and isn't of any relevance.
You keep attacking me for everything that I said on the basis of your claim to have installed these heaters.

I accept that you did not install them, but that does not alter the fact that I wrote what I did because of what you said you had done.

ban-all-sheds said:
That they turned out to be invalid because of a misleading statement that you made is not my fault.
Not so - you assumed that LABC was not informed, based on no information. You still don't know whether or not you were right,
Oh yes I do.

but it doesn't matter because you made an invalid (i.e. groundless) assumption.
An assumption may well be groundless, but that does not mean that the conclusion is incorrect.
 
Loads of help here but hey, anyone CAN notify LABC, qualified or not. Anyone can buy a Fluke or Megger and test stuff but LABC will not let anyone sign off their own work. I think we've all worked out that you two aren't going to agree about this but the whole point of regulations is to make sure that all installations are to the same standard of safety.

A lot of qualified electricians are not members of competent person schemes but do follow building and wiring regs and sign off directly to LABC. Doesn't make them lesser people.

Back to the OP. A continuity test will show if the heater is going to work though. If you don't trust the test, yes, plug the damn thing in, what's the problem with proving that something is safe? Surely it's a functional test anyway? You know? On the form where it says functional test, you can tick the box by doing this? A bit like switching on lamps and testing RCD's.

Ah well, I'll leave you to get back to the argument, that's my 2p's worth.

Editid to say: Yes, I am fully qualified and insured and yes, I am more than happy to inspect and test DIY work as It's more important that work is safe than anything else. You can't see it, you can't hear it, you can't smell it or taste it but it can kill you if you touch it.
 
I think we've all worked out that you two aren't going to agree about this
We didn't at the time, but after 5 years of silence from nickyross it's hard to know if, or how, his views have changed.


Back to the OP. A continuity test will show if the heater is going to work though. If you don't trust the test, yes, plug the damn thing in, what's the problem with proving that something is safe? Surely it's a functional test anyway? You know? On the form where it says functional test, you can tick the box by doing this? A bit like switching on lamps and testing RCD's.
He wasn't interested in advice on the proper way to test electrical installation work 5 years ago - I doubt he's still waiting for suggestions.


Ah well, I'll leave you to get back to the argument,
I don't think that the argument is going to restart after an interval of 5 years.
 

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
Back
Top