How far from the ring can an FCU be

[ebee]

I suppose that's what one would expect, but if any such case did get to court one imagines that 'the other side' would probably also produce expert witnesses to present an argument as to why non-compliance with BS7671 (if that's what was present) was not a problem in the case concerned.

Yes indeed - please do not ask me how "Justice" can be found by getting the cleverest person you can get on your side according to the size of your wallet! LOL.

 

[JohnW2]

The law which makes compliance with the Wiring Regulations effectively mandatory applies to non-notifiable work as well.

Yes, one could say that in terms of "effectively mandatory" - but it would, of course, only be "effectively mandatory" if one (or experts acting onone's behalf) could not argue that Part P was staisfied despite non-compliance with BS7671.

However, as I imagine you understand, that was not my point. Per my words you have quoted, I was saying that there is nothing 'illegal' about having a long-standing situation of an installation without RCD protection, and that would remain the case (in relation to the long-standing parts of the installation) even if non-notifiable work was done on the installation. I suppose I should have added that that assumes that the 'non-notifiable work' was, itself, compliant with BS7671.

For example, if one added a socket to a sockets circuit, many/most would probably say that the new socket would have to have RCD protection for the work to be compliant with Part P. However, provided that one new socket were provided with RCD protection, I don't personally feel that there would be any requirement to provide such protection for all the pre-existing sockets - and, if that were the case, there would still be nothing 'illegal' about the installation as a whole. Do you agree with that?

 

[JohnW2]

Yes indeed - please do not ask me how "Justice" can be found by getting the cleverest person you can get on your side according to the size of your wallet! LOL.

Indeed. That's a variant of a conversation I often have with my barrister daughter, in relaton to lawyers.

I think it fair to say that many lawyers, particularly barristers, regard their activities as an intellectual/academic exercise/'game' - which means that the most 'clever' (and hence perhaps most expensive) participant will 'win', despite without necessarily much consideration of what may be the actual 'truth' (i.e. 'justice'). It's quite common, 'after the event', to hear two lawyers discussing the question of which of their arguments was the 'correct' one (i.e. whether justice was correctly served).

However, I'm not at all sure that there is really any solution to this. Given that there very often are 'two sides to a story', someone has to present those 'two sides', and if some are better at doing that than others, it's hard to see how one can avoid them 'being more expensive' - if one can only afford to eat in the local 'caff', one cannot expect to eat as well as in a Michelin-starred restaurant

It's not only the lawyers, since juries sometimes don't help, sometimes returning strange and seemingly irrational verdicts. I can see an argument for getting rid of 'lay' juries, or at least replacing them with 'professional ones', but I also fully understand the reasons why such a change would invoke many serious concerns. In present context, I can't see how any jury (even a 'professional' one) would really be competent to choose between two contradictory 'Expert Opinions' - so, as you say, everything I've written above in relation to lawyers also applies to expert witnesses.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Yes, one could say that in terms of "effectively mandatory" - but it would, of course, only be "effectively mandatory" if one (or experts acting onone's behalf) could not argue that Part P was staisfied despite non-compliance with BS7671.

I had to read that bit twice

 

[JohnW2]

I had to read that bit twice

Did you 'get there' (understand my intended meaning) in the end?

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed. That's a variant of a conversation I often have with my barrister daughter, in relaton to lawyers. .... I think it fair to say that many lawyers, particularly barristers, regard their activities as an intellectual/academic exercise/'game' - which means that the most 'clever' (and hence perhaps most expensive) participant will 'win', despite without necessarily much consideration of what may be the actual 'truth' (i.e. 'justice'). It's quite common, 'after the event', to hear two lawyers discussing the question of which of their arguments was the 'correct' one (i.e. whether justice was correctly served).

I could, perhaps should, have added ....

Although I realise that there are limits to what is practical, the more explicit/prescriptive and the more comprehensive are the laws/regulations, the less 'wiggle room' is there for expert witnesses or lawyers to play with!

 

[ebee]

Did you 'get there' (understand my intended meaning) in the end?

Yes thanks John, and I agreed with it