direct replacement in special locations.

[Spark123]

I've noticed a trend amongst those people who find it difficult to read the SI directly, which is that they're given to referring to other people's interpretations of the law. Apropos this trend, Spark123 has posted a link to the ODPM site, and he hasn't stated whether or not he agrees with the ODPM's interpretation. (I happen to disagree with it, just in case you wondered).

The link I posted is to the Statutory Instrument, which as I read it (in my interpretation) says that replacing enclosures of existing installation components (which I interpret as showers, electric ovens etc) are not notifiable unless the circuit protective measures are affected, hence I am still in the same frame of mind that they are not notifiable to LABC.

 

[andy]

I've noticed a trend amongst those people who find it difficult to read the SI directly, which is that they're given to referring to other people's interpretations of the law. Apropos this trend, Spark123 has posted a link to the ODPM site, and he hasn't stated whether or not he agrees with the ODPM's interpretation. (I happen to disagree with it, just in case you wondered).

The link I posted is to the Statutory Instrument, which as I read it (in my interpretation) says that replacing enclosures of existing installation components (which I interpret as showers, electric ovens etc) are not notifiable unless the circuit protective measures are affected, hence I am still in the same frame of mind that they are not notifiable to LABC.

softus - you have given us NO proof that this is notifiable. yet there is loads of proof that says it isnt notifiable. now, either prove us wrong, or STFU with what you 'think' is right

 

[Spark123]

just noticed on that table that installing telecomms in a special location, other than a kitchen is notifiable. wonder if all the BT/telewest las are now part p!?

The way I am reading the SI refers to Kitchens, Special locations and Special installations independantly. The only place telecoms is notifiable where it is installed in a special location, this being one of those listed in BS7671.

 

[kier]

sorry i did not want to start an argument here.
thanks for replies.
think i will retire early now.

 

[Softus]

softus - you have given us NO proof that this is notifiable. yet there is loads of proof that says it isnt notifiable. now, either prove us wrong, or STFU with what you 'think' is right

andy, you say that there is loads of "proof", but none of it has been posted here.

I will continue to post here, if I want to. I suggest that you mind your manners sonny boy.

 

[Stoday]

The root of the problem is the different wording used in Part P and SI 3210 2004.

For example, the SI says "replacing any socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose"
The corresponding sentence in Part P says "Replacing any electrical fitting including socket-outlets, control switches and ceiling roses"

Our argument about the replacement shower being notifiable depends on the interpretation of the SI. The ODPM's interpretation is clear - it's not notifiable. Another authority is the IEE wiring regs committee, hence Paul Cook. His interpretation is also clear that it's not notifiable.

Weighing their interpretation on the scales against that of Softus and I can only conclude that Softus dosn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Softus]

The way I am reading the SI refers to Kitchens, Special locations and Special installations independantly. The only place telecoms is notifiable where it is installed in a special location, this being one of those listed in BS7671.

Thanks for your post Spark123 - I shall read the status again, (yet again), and see if can agree with you.

 

[Softus]

Weighing their interpretation on the scales against that of Softus and I can only conclude that Softus dosn't have a leg to stand on.

That isn't a very convincing way of debating this point, because is merely shows that you can count.

 

[andy]

softus - either prove that it is notifiable or shut up.

 

[Stoday]

So, we are all marching out of step except for Softus.

As the overwhelming interpretation is that it's not notifiable, I think it's up to Softus to convince us that his interpretation is right.

 

[Softus]

softus - either prove that it is notifiable or shut up.

andy, you're missing the point - the only proof is a court ruling - all we're doing here is exchanging interpretations of the law.

There's a second point that you're missing, which is that you wanting me to shut up has not one iota of an effect, so I suggest you wait for someone else to pick your toys up and put then back in the pram for you.

When I've digested the comments posted here by the courteous and knowledgable forum members, i.e. not you, I will post again. This is another kind of behaviour that you may wish to consider - thinking before writing.

 

[andy]

softus - either prove that it is notifiable or shut up.

andy, you're missing the point - the only proof is a court ruling - all we're doing here is exchanging interpretations of the law.

please show us an official document which clearly states replacing a shower, like for like, is notifiable. other members have already posted links which clearly state that it is not notifiable, so unless you have something to go by, then your talking ****.

 

[Softus]

please show us an official document which clearly states replacing a shower, like for like, is notifiable. other members have already posted links which clearly state that it is not notifiable, so unless you have something to go by, then your talking s**t.

Well you seem happy to respond to my points, so there must be some value in them. Although, you're not actually responding to my points, are you - you're really just having a tantrum instead.

I have stated all along that I'm open-minded, and I'm prepared to listen to reason. However, all that has been posted on this topic are two statements of other people's interpretations. I'm under no illusions, and aware that my opinion flies in the face of official opinion, but I'm entitled to hold my own opinion and to express it.

You are entitled to assume that I'm wrong, and I'm quite content for you to hold that assumption, but my point is that you have not reached your conclusion by any cogent thought, only by running along behind the gathering crowd of people who are poking fun at the bloke who stands alone. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but your playgound manner is neither adult nor respectable.

I acknowledged you when you were right, on page 1, but you continue to present your opinions in a babyish way. You will no doubt wish to further repeat your belief that I'm wrong, and probably throw in an insult, but you will not goad me into a further reply. When I've finished work, and when I'm ready, I'll post again, but I won't be responding to you any more on this topic andy.

 

[andy]

argue your right all you want, but unless you can prove it, then your wrong.

 

[BJS_Spark]

Add this thread to the argument if you will!!
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37404&highlight=