Building Regulations for Bathrooms

[JohnW2]

I would not be surprised if all the services (electric and water) enter the flat in the same place (cupboard) but there was no bonding visible under the kitchen sink.

Are you talking about a cupboard under the kitchen sink, or a cupboard distant from the sink?

Of course, whether the situation is compliant (in the sort of scenario which I have postulated) would depend upon one's interpretation of "as close as practicable".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, I mean where the services all enter in an actual cupboard, housing everything and where everything is installed correctly therefore there is no bonding visible under the sink where this person is used to seeing it.

 

[JohnW2]

No, I mean where the services all enter in an actual cupboard, housing everything and where everything is installed correctly therefore there is no bonding visible under the sink where this person is used to seeing it.

Oh, fair enough - but if the person was going to code the absence of visible bonding in a place where it shouldn't be, anyway, then we might as well give up (on him/her, and on everything else his/her EICR said!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm sorry I have less faith than you.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sorry I have less faith than you.

How much less faith can you have than my view that one should ignore everything that such a person's EICR says?!

(I'm not disagreeing that such people exist, but I'm saying that if they make such a glaring error in relation to something as 'obvious' as bonding, nothing their EICR says can be taken seriously)

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Some testers look for get out of jail cards, by finding some faults, which means some one has to follow them up, and do repairs, and then they will take the blame for anything missed.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

[/QUOTE]Fair enough - I take that to mean taht vyou would not 'code' it? As I said, it would be easy enough to verify that the connection was 'electrically satisfactory', but very distant from the point of entry of the service), but not to verify that it was compliant.
[/QUOTE]
I would code 3 it, as in my opinion it is electrically safe but would recommend improvement to tick all the boxes.

 

[JohnW2]

Fair enough - I take that to mean taht vyou would not 'code' it? As I said, it would be easy enough to verify that the connection was 'electrically satisfactory' .... but not to verify that it was compliant.

I would code 3 it, as in my opinion it is electrically safe but would recommend improvement to tick all the boxes.

Fair enough. Would you also give a C3 in the more explicit scenario I described, namely ....

... If the bonding conductor were fully visible, and was connected to the water service pipe just a metre or so from the MET (but many metres from where the service entered the property) and, as would probably be the case (even a 15mm Cu pipe, with 1mm walls, has a CSA of around 45mm²), you measured a very low resistance from MET to the point of entry of the service, would you give that a C2, or what?

??

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is any blind adherence about the position of the main bond because of:

"At the point of entry where practicable".


I suspect (know) people think it means the same as practical.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ah - but which way round?

When they read "At the point of entry where practicable", do they get the meaning right, but erroneously think that "At the point of entry where practical" would mean the same?

i.e. if they think that practicable and practical mean the same, which meaning do they ascribe to the words?

 

[JohnW2]

Is any blind adherence about the position of the main bond because of: "At the point of entry where practicable". I suspect (know) people think it means the same as practical.

You may well be right, particularly given that I suspect that very many people are not too clear on the differential meanings of the two words. I don't think that many people use "practicable" but, rather, they tend to use "practical" when they should should use "practicable" (e.g. "it would not be practical [wrong] for me to get to London that early" - because the trains didn't start early enough). Hence there is plenty of scope for confusion and uncertainty.

As you undoubtedly know, "practicable" (as in the regs) essentially means "doable" ("feasible", "capable of being done"). Contrary to what many people seem to think, it does not mean "doable without too much effort/ inconvenience/ hassle". On that basis, there would be very few cases in which, strictly speaking, it was not "practicable" to bond an incoming service very close to where it entered the property - it might be a hassle/'mission' in some cases, but it would nevertheless be "practicable".

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

If the bonding conductor were fully visible, and was connected to the water service pipe just a metre or so from the MET (but many metres from where the service entered the property) and, as would probably be the case (even a 15mm Cu pipe, with 1mm walls, has a CSA of around 45mm²), you measured a very low resistance from MET to the point of entry of the service, would you give that a C2, or what?

Well I would have to assess the risk, as it stands it would still be a code 3 in my book, But there is a high probability that given the distance, that alteration may be undertaken on the pipework, which could alter the original reading taken, which could then make it a code 1.But it is nothing more than a code 3 at this time, as the bonding is present and has been verified via tests, although not to current standards.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"it would not be practical [wrong] for me to get to London that early" - because the trains didn't start early enough

Ah, but what if that's not why he's saying it?

What if the trains do run, but it wouldn't be useful for him to get there that early because no shops would be open?

As you undoubtedly know, "practicable" (as in the regs) essentially means "doable" ("feasible", "capable of being done"). Contrary to what many people seem to think, it does not mean "doable without too much effort/ inconvenience/ hassle". On that basis, there would be very few cases in which, strictly speaking, it was not "practicable" to bond an incoming service very close to where it entered the property - it might be a hassle/'mission' in some cases, but it would nevertheless be "practicable".

Many dictionaries have feasible as a definition for practicable, and when you look at the definition of that you'll often find it includes concepts of ease and convenience.

But anyway - the idea that practicable does imply a degree of ease/convenience/reasonableness etc is commonly held, and I thought you were of the belief that if enough people say a word means something then that's all that is necessary for it to actually mean it?

How do we know that the people who used it in the regulations don't believe it implies a degree of reasonableness?


Now, shall we talk about the various requirements in the regs to minimise things?

 

[JohnW2]

"it would not be practical [wrong] for me to get to London that early" - because the trains didn't start early enough

Ah, but what if that's not why he's saying it? What if the trains do run, but it wouldn't be useful for him to get there that early because no shops would be open?

That's why I included the reason he was saying it! As you imply, if the reason were yours, and not the one I explicitly stated, then it would be "impractical", not "impracticable"

But anyway - the idea that practicable does imply a degree of ease/convenience/reasonableness etc is commonly held, and I thought you were of the belief that if enough people say a word means something then that's all that is necessary for it to actually mean it?

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.

How do we know that the people who used it in the regulations don't believe it implies a degree of reasonableness?

We don't know. As always, we can but speculate about the intent of the authors (or their beliefs about what their words meant). Given that what that regulation says about bonding in the presence of an "insulating section" appears to indicate that the authors had no understanding of the concept and purpose of 'main equipotential bonding', I imagine that anything is possible!

I think the reality is that very few people ever use the word "practicable", and most probably don't have a clear idea of what it means (I certainly had to check this morning that my understanding was correct). I would therefore suggest that it is a word best avoided (in favour of more explicit and readily-understood language) in regulations that need to be understood and implemented by 'ordinary people'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Well I would have to assess the risk, as it stands it would still be a code 3 in my book, But there is a high probability that given the distance, that alteration may be undertaken on the pipework, which could alter the original reading taken, which could then make it a code 1.

... and the existence of that (albeit low) risk is presumably why the regs call for bonding close to the point of entry ("just in case").

But it is nothing more than a code 3 at this time, as the bonding is present and has been verified via tests, although not to current standards.

Fair enough. Mind you, one presumably has to be careful about "it hasn't happened yet" arguments - a cracked enclosure does not present an immediate danger/risk, but it certainly would if it subsequently 'fell apart'.

Kind Regards, John