Building Regulations for Bathrooms

[ban-all-sheds]

I am of the belief that if a word comes to be so widely used with a meaning that differs from the 'original' meaning that the 'new' meaning comes to be included in major dictionaries (as 'one of the meanings in use') that it can then be taken to mean that.

Tell that to the idiots at the OUP who decided that in the latest edition of their children's dictionary, "blackberry" should be defined as a mobile phone/PDA, with no mention of the fruit.

 

[epat]

Part of the PAT testing procedure is to fix a dated label to the appliance stating when it is next due for testing. Are those labels there?

Not for a good number of years of that has been the case (in fact labelling is not even required, but is good practice).
The IET code of practice for inservice inspection etc (4th ed) recommends that the next test date is NOT put on the label.
I do not like that recommendation, but follow it, the theory they have is it will make duty holders more responsible, but to me it is likely to just decrease the chance of someone spotting something that really does need a test.

 

[Risteard]

Part of the PAT testing procedure is to fix a dated label to the appliance stating when it is next due for testing. Are those labels there?

Actually, the 4th Edition of the Code of Practice clearly states that a date of next inspection should NOT be included on the label as it is the responsibility of the duty holder to assess when these should be next inspected and tested (and not the inspector).

And a label is considered good practice as opposed to a requirement.

EDIT: I see that epat has made the same points already.

 

[Risteard]

Looking for closed circuit, hoping for less than 0.05 ohms.

The 0.05Ω guidance has nothing to do with the resistance of a main protective bonding conductor. It is simply stating that the connection to the extraneous conductive part, e.g. between a BS951 clamp and the pipe it is connected to should be of negligible impedance (e.g. <0.05Ω).

The main protective bonding conductor to which this is connected could have a significantly greater measured resistance as this is a function of its length and cross-sectional area.

 

[securespark]

That's not what I was taught.

 

[Risteard]

That's not what I was taught.

What's not what you were taught?