18th 544.1.2

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh and that other old bone of contention from electricians is where plumbers still insist on linking taps and sinks/baths together with a bit of earth wire. Blame electrical regs again.

No - absolutely not.

The blame there lies entirely with the plumbers who don't know how to do their job properly.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It seems a bit rotten to require the 'responsible person' (who usually/often will know nothing about either gas or electrical regulations/practices) to pay to "have it checked" because a gas engineer or fitter does not know whether bonding is needed or not, isn't it?

I think that if I were a landlord, and therefore not really in a position to ignore such written notification, I'd be mightily peeved if that kept happening, and my electrician kept saying "It's not necessary - the gas guy doesn't understand."

 

[ban-all-sheds]

the time when the electrical regulations required virtually every piece of metal to be bonded.

Did they really?

 

[JohnW2]

I've just noticed an apparent anomaly in the legislation quoted in that guidance document. It says (with my emboldening) ...

...in any case where equipotential bonding may be necessary, inform the responsible person that such bonding should be carried out by a competent person.

Given that "may be necessary" actually means "may or may not be necessary", the legislation appears to be saying that bonding "should be carried out" even when it is not necessary!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

legislation will say "must" if it means you've got to do it.

"Should" means it would be nice but not required.

Where can I see the Statutory Instrument or Act of Parliament you saw it in?

 

[JohnW2]

That is as far as it goes for gas installers, they should defer to the experts. I wouldn't ask my electrician to take a look at my boiler.

That would be a defensible approach if they were consistent in saying that they did not regard themselves as competent to decide when bonding was necessary, let alone competent to install bonding.

So, if you/they want to take that view, why only in relation to 'main bonding'? There are plenty of plumbers and gas people who appear to feel that they are competent to decide that (electrically totally unnecessary) 'cross-bonding' of pipes is required and to actually install that (electrically totally unnecessary) bonding themselves.

Kind Regards, John

 

[AlanE]

legislation will say "must" if it means you've got to do it.

"Should" means it would be nice but not required.

Where can I see the Statutory Instrument or Act of Parliament you saw it in?

Bear with me I will try to reveal all later. May not be until this evening.

 

[AlanE]

That would be a defensible approach if they were consistent in saying that they did not regard themselves as competent to decide when bonding was necessary, let alone competent to install bonding.

So, if you/they want to take that view, why only in relation to 'main bonding'? There are plenty of plumbers and gas people who appear to feel that they are competent to decide that (electrically totally unnecessary) 'cross-bonding' of pipes is required and to actually install that (electrically totally unnecessary) bonding themselves.

Kind Regards, John

Again bear with me and I will try to 'defend' them a bit later.

 

[JohnW2]

legislation will say "must" if it means you've got to do it. ... "Should" means it would be nice but not required.

Yes, I know that, and was just using everyday language. So, if you would prefer, I can rephrase my sentence as ...

Given that "may be necessary" actually means "may or may not be necessary", the legislation appears to be saying that 'it would be nice' if bonding were carried out, even when it is not necessary!

Where can I see the Statutory Instrument or Act of Parliament you saw it in?

The bit I mentioned was quoted in the linked document we have been discussing for the last few pages - click here .

Kind Regards, John

 

[AlanE]

John further to my last post above would just be interested in how long you have been connected with the industry. Tell me to get lost if you don't wish to say or PM me if just not in public!

Think it would have been 13/14th editions when I was first involved.

 

[JohnD]

The bit I mentioned was quoted in the linked document we have been discussing for the last few pages - click here .

Thanks. It says it is quoting from 18.2 in the 1998 Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations. It uses the word "shall... inform the responsible person" but the work "should" be carried out by a competent person.

Which I think means that a competent person must be informed, and this is the duty in the Gas Regulation. The competent person would then decide if the (potentially "incompetent") person who identified the pipe is right in thinking that it needs to be bonded or whatever. It doesn't say that an "incompetent" person must garnish his pipework with whimsical cables. If the gasman or plumber is trained and currently qualified in that work, as a member of a Scheme, he is then a competent person and will probably do it correctly.

I don't know if Gas Safe Competence includes training, an exam and qualification in electrical bonding and earthing, which would be needed to make them a "competent person" for that work. If it doesn't, then I doubt that issuing bulletins and guidance notes can confer that status.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As 18(2)

appears to relate only to new gas installations, and would seem to be quite appropriate, it follows that it is totally irrelevant to Gas Safety Inspections.

 

[JohnW2]

John further to my last post above would just be interested in how long you have been connected with the industry. Tell me to get lost if you don't wish to say or PM me if just not in public!

There is no secret about the answer, which is very well known here.

This is a DIY forum, not an electricians' forum, and the majority of the contributors (including many of the 'prolific' and regular ones) are non-electricians. I think only two of the contributors to this thread have been electricians (and one of those is retired).

I am one of those non-electricians. I am not, and never have been, even remotely 'connected' to the electrical industry, but (just as with many of the other non-electricians here) that doesn't mean that I don't know a good few things about electrical matters .

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Think it would have been 13/14th editions when I was first involved.

One might be tempted to remark that perhaps you should have learnt by now.

This is definitely not the first time it has been discussed on this forum since you joined in 2004.



So, it would seem that time connected with the industry does not appear to be a relevant factor.

 

[JohnW2]

... Which I think means that a competent person must be informed, and this is the duty in the Gas Regulation. The competent person would then decide if the (potentially "incompetent") person who identified the pipe is right in thinking that it needs to be bonded or whatever.

Yes, I'm sure that is what it is meant to mean - I highlighted it as yet another bit of legislation or regulations that has been badly worded. It would have been so easy for them to have written ....

"... inform the responsible person that such bonding, if necessary, should be carried out by a competent person ..."

... but they didn't.

It doesn't say that an "incompetent" person must garnish his pipework with whimsical cables.

I'm sure that it was intended to say/mean that. However, it's the actual words that matter in terms of legislation (to give lawyers and judges something to debate ) and, as you said, by using "should", rather than "shall", in terms of the accepted convention for legislation, that means that, if bonding were necessary, "it would be nice if" (but not "required that") it were installed by a competent person!

If the gasman or plumber is trained and currently qualified in that work, as a member of a Scheme, he is then a competent person and will probably do it correctly. I don't know if Gas Safe Competence includes training, an exam and qualification in electrical bonding and earthing, which would be needed to make them a "competent person" for that work.

As I recently wrote, and whilst I have no idea as to what relevant training they do and don't have it seems that many plumbers and 'gasmen' seem to regard themselves as 'competent' not only to decide that (electrically totally unnecessary) 'cross-bonding' of pipes is necessary but to actually install such (electrically unnecessary) bonding themselves.

If it doesn't, then I doubt that issuing bulletins and guidance notes can confer that status.

The guidance/bulletin we are talking about would seem to only be relevant to someone who was not regarded as competent to decide whether main bonding was required and, if so, to install it. Someone who did regard himself as competent would presumably inform the 'responsible person' that main bonding was required and offer to carry lout that work - not just inform that person that is "should be carried out by a competent person"!

Kind Regards, John