Does bonding need to be installed?

[EFLImpudence]

So, what is being said is that it is ILLEGAL, by threat of law, poo or hunting, to do ANY work, no matter how safety related or inconsequential, on an installation without main bonding.

Conversely, it is COMPULSORY, by threat of law, for a home owner to have main bonding fitted before ANY other work, no matter how safety related or inconsequential, may be done.

 

[deadshort]

Removed. No one died, just work of fiction.


DS

 

[EFLImpudence]

Have you misunderstood my intention, DS?

 

[JohnW2]

So, what is being said is that it is ILLEGAL, by threat of law, poo or hunting, to do ANY work, no matter how safety related or inconsequential, on an installation without main bonding. ... Conversely, it is COMPULSORY, by threat of law, for a home owner to have main bonding fitted before ANY other work, no matter how safety related or inconsequential, may be done.

[I'm wondering why deadshort thanked you for this ]
Some may read it as such, but but both are obviously nonsense. To be fair, no-one has actually suggested that either are illegal - the two strong views we've heard were justified not in terms of illegality, or to concerns for the safety of their customers, but to perceived concerns about their own backsides and professional careers.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

To be fair, no-one has actually suggested that either are illegal - the two strong views we've heard were justified not in terms of illegality, or to concerns for the safety of their customers, but to perceived concerns about their own backsides and professional careers.

Perhaps, but isn't that the logical conclusion of 'poo or hunting'?

What other sanctions will lead to getting into trouble?

 

[JohnW2]

Have you misunderstood my intention, DS?

As I implied in my last post, I suspect he did misunderstand! He's been writing some very odd posts this evening - look two or three posts up from this one

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

To be fair, no-one has actually suggested that either are illegal - the two strong views we've heard were justified not in terms of illegality, or to concerns for the safety of their customers, but to perceived concerns about their own backsides and professional careers.

Perhaps, but isn't that the logical conclusion of 'poo or hunting'?

Sure, I was merely pointing out that neither of them had said it would be illegal (as in the law) to undertake work in an installation that was lacking required MPB.

Whatever, I suspect that professional bodies, just like the law, would be none too impressed by an electrician being essentially responsible for a death or serious injury by refusing to deal with a dangerous problem - no matter what the reason for that refusal.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Spark123]

To comply with the iee regs to the letter you shouldn't alter or add to an installation if the bonding isn't up to scratch.

Which particular letter (number) of the "iee regs" (do I take it you man BS7671?) did you have in mind?

132.16 is the reg I was thinking of

 

[deadshort]

Have you misunderstood my intention, DS?

No. your post is quite clear to me.

Regards,

DS

 

[deadshort]

When it's your livelihood there is no debate. If the customer says no, walkaway because when it goes wrong, they come a hunting

See my response to Risteard. I agree thet "when it goes wrong, they come a hunting", but there's more ways than one of 'going wrong', hence more than one reason why they might 'come a hunting'. How about "Elderly woman suffers horrific death following refusal of electrician to rectify a dangerous fault" appeal to you as a newspaper headline?

Kind Regards, John

Apologies John, i thought you referring to a situation you had experienced first hand.

I now realise it was fictional headline you used for 'dramatic effect'.

Regards,

DS

 

[JohnW2]

To comply with the iee regs to the letter you shouldn't alter or add to an installation if the bonding isn't up to scratch.

Which particular letter (number) of the "iee regs" (do I take it you man BS7671?) did you have in mind?

132.16 is the reg I was thinking of

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. It does indeed appear to forbid 'additions to alterations' to an installation which has inadequate (or no) main bonding IF the bonding is necessary "for the safety of the addition or alteration". In RF's case (i.e. the OP), if the stat does not have any exposed conductive parts, I think one could argue that the absence of main bonding is not an issue, couldn't one?

Whatever, in terms of subsequent discussions, for the reasons I've given, I really don't think the intention of that reg to prevent emergency work to be undertaken to remedy immediately dangerous situations, even if main bonding is absent.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Apologies John, i thought you referring to a situation you had experienced first hand. I now realise it was fictional headline you used for 'dramatic effect'.

Thanks. Yes, of course it was a fictional headline - but my point remains.

Kind Regards, John