Regulations on new work

[saxondale]

has he gone then ?

What sort of stupid question is that?
Once again showing a distinct lack of anything written in our language.
Perhaps it is not your mother tongue in which case we`d have been more sympathetic of your dilema as failure to understand a (to you) foriegn language.

PMSL - the irony of reading what you posted INC SPELLING MISTAKE priceless.

so whats your mother tongue fool.Stick to posting advice (if you have any to give that is)

 

[ebee]

PMSL - Is this a person or is this an abbreviation for something?
If you point out my spelling mistakes I will happily correct them for you.
I am not a fool.
My mother tongue is English, what is yours?

PS would you like to explain the irony of whatever?

Is this better?

What sort of stupid question is that?
Once again showing a distinct lack of anything written in our language.
Perhaps it is not your mother tongue in which case we’d have been more sympathetic of your dilemma as failure to understand a (to you) foreign language.

 

[ColJack]

PMSL = Pi**ed My Self Laughing

 

[ebee]

Excellent.
Glad to put you in such a good mood.
It`s still English but just another spelling of a couple of the words. LOL

 

[saxondale]

PMSL - Is this a person or is this an abbreviation for something?
If you point out my spelling mistakes I will happily correct them for you.
I am not a fool.
My mother tongue is English, what is yours?

PS would you like to explain the irony of whatever?

Is this better?

What sort of stupid question is that?
Once again showing a distinct lack of anything written in our language.
Perhaps it is not your mother tongue in which case we’d have been more sympathetic of your dilemma as failure to understand a (to you) foreign language.

nope just gets better and better, now whats the saying about people in glass houses ?


ps. just to help, I have highlighted the grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and gluttal stops - me ? I type as I speak

 

[ebee]

Right point taken,
Your grammar spelling beats mine.
No problem there then.
So why are you picking out truthfull statements and slating them? Even accussing the writer of being a "wordsmith" , whatever that might mean!

 

[saxondale]

Right point taken,
Your grammar spelling beats mine.
No problem there then.
So why are you picking out truthfull statements and slating them? Even accussing the writer of being a "wordsmith" , whatever that might mean!

hey ebee I never picked fault with your grammer or spelling till you asked what was IRONIC LOL

guys a wordsmith plain and simple - no there is no statutary requirment to follow B7671 (?) but its only when you push him he admits you need to follow ANOTHER COMPARABLE SET OF REQUIRMENTS and that the best way to ensure this IS TO COMPLY WITH BS7671, he`s just been clever with his words - we know that and other trade know that - indeed in a closed trade forum it`d be a bit of a catchphrase but here in the public context drivel like he espouses needs a disclaimer.

so now im off to wire a fused spur same as they do it in the Belgium Congo - problem with that?

 

[daytona]

the first four paragraphs of appendix 2 cover it fairly well.

its a can of worms if you dont comply with BS7671

but i dont think anyone has recommended you dont anyway

 

[ebee]

I suspect we might all agree on that

 

[ban-all-sheds]

but i dont think anyone has recommended you dont anyway

I suspect we might all agree on that

Almost all....

 

[dunny123]

I empathise with saxondale in that whilst nothing BAS has stated is incorrect, what practical value is there, in the context of the original post, to suggest that the OP may be able to stay within the law by complying with any other standard than BS7671 ?

The argument (that you do not have to comply with BS7671), again, whilst factual, is at best hypothetical, and I agree with softus that perhaps a caveat of what would be the most advisable course of action would have been wise.

 

[Stoday]

Indeed so, dunny123.

Strictly, BAS is right that you don't have to comply with BS7671 to meet part P requirements. But that information is utterly useless because the DNO won't connect your installation unless it meets BS7671.


(Note for BAS to shut him up...

The DNO has a statutory obligation to ensure that a consumer's installation complies with "British Standard Requirements or these Regulations", according to para 25 of SI 2002 No 2665. And all DNOs note in their connection literature that they want a certificate to show compliance before connection.)

 

[saxondale]

The argument (that you do not have to comply with BS7671), again, whilst factual, is at best hypothetical, and I agree with softus that perhaps a caveat of what would be the most advisable course of action would have been wise.

thats the word - thank you very much, could I for the life of me remember it LOL

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I empathise with saxondale in that whilst nothing BAS has stated is incorrect, what practical value is there, in the context of the original post, to suggest that the OP may be able to stay within the law by complying with any other standard than BS7671 ?

The values of truth and accuracy.

(And as an aside, if you don't like the suggestion that the OP may be able to stay within the law by complying with any standard other than BS7671, then please go and take your argument to Hazel Blears MP, who is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and therefore responsible for the department which in official advice tells everyone that they can stay within the law by complying with any one of many standards other than BS7671. That is not an invention of mine, or an interpretation - it is explicitly stated in black and white by the Government. You might also like to re-read the OP, which was nothing to do with BS7671, or not, and everything to do with non-notification).

The problem, you see, is that as soon as you start "misleading" people (aka lying to them) because you think you know better than them what they can be trusted to know, you run the risk of them finding out the truth, and finding out that you have been misleading them.

At which point they will no longer trust you, and will no longer believe a damn thing you say. All of your advice to them, no matter how good, becomes worthless in their eyes.

You talk about the context of the original post, but that had absolutely nothing to do with the post I made that caused all that grief. The only context to consider is the one which related to the answer I gave, for which I received so much stick from people unable to read and comprehend.

The question was this:

Assume that the work has been done to BS7671 (2001/2004) and not notified but then the naughty DIYer decides to subsequently notify.

Would he (now) have to bring his 16th edition work up to meet 17th edition requirements ??

And the answer to that, unless you're going to lie, is "no".

And it can either be just "no", or it can be "no" with an explanation as to why, and I chose the latter.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The DNO has a statutory obligation to ensure that a consumer's installation complies with "British Standard Requirements or these Regulations", according to para 25 of SI 2002 No 2665. And all DNOs note in their connection literature that they want a certificate to show compliance before connection.)

Perhaps you should also read para 1(2)......

Again - I'm sorry if the reality of the various applicable laws and regulations causes you discomfort, but if it does please take your argument to the people that wrote them.