dirty tricks
- Thread starter adlplumbing
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
P
Paul_C
There is no requirement to do that, as you are well aware.
P
Paul_C
The current version of BS7671 specifies RCD protection for newly installed bathroom circuits regardless of whether supplementary bonding is also used or not. But my point is that one can comply with the legal requirements of Part P without following every last detail of BS7671.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Choosing to comply with the current edition of BS 7671 is the easiest way to comply with the law, and AFAIK it is the only way open to registered electricians.
Once chosen then effectively it does become a legal requirement to comply with BS 7671.
Choosing to comply with the current edition of BS 7671 is the easiest way to comply with the law, and AFAIK it is the only way open to registered electricians.
Once chosen then effectively it does become a legal requirement to comply with BS 7671.
Sponsored Links
P
Paul_C
No, I'm pointing out that there is no obligation to follow BS7671, as you well know.
A little way up the thread you stated that it's "100% unacceptable" for that company quoting for the bathroom work to tell the a customer that it would be illegal without fitting a new consumer unit.
Do you not consider it equally unacceptable for an electrician to try and tell a customer that there is a legal requirement for all new work to comply fully with BS7671 even though that's not true?
But not the only way. Even the guidance notes acknowledge that.
As a condition of their membership to the scheme, yes. But that's the not the same thing as them trying to suggest, or at best imply, that it's a legal requirement.
Possible electrician's reply #1:
"You're not required to have RCD protection on the new bathroom light, but I will only work within the conditions of my scheme registration which require me to install to BS7671 which demands an RCD."
Truthful and acceptable.
Possible electrician's reply #2:
"I'm not allowed to fit that new light without adding an RCD. It's the law."
Completely false, and thus unacceptable.
What do you mean by effectively, exactly? There is no legal compulsion to follow BS7671. Period.
actualy they state they found a real gas leak
to the camra when the victim is not their,
so they etheir lie which is to ordiance which is not allowed
or mess with gas
Well, you are being obtuse, so if it isn't deliberate then it is because you are genuinely mentally slow.
Yes, I know that.
What you seem unable or unwilling to accept is that
somebody chooses compliance with BS 7671 as their route to compliance with something which is a legal requirement then they have chosen to make it a legal requirement for them to comply with BS 7671.
It might have become true via the choices made by the electrician for the way he complies with the Building Regulations.
But
having chosen it, and officially declared that it will be the way to compliance with a requirement which is required by law, then you have to comply with it.
they are using their membership of a Competent Person scheme as the way to be exempted from the requirement to give a building notice or deposit full plans, and they then contravene the terms of their membership of that scheme their claim for exemption from Building Regulation 12(2) is without basis.
There is for someone who uses his membership of a Competent Person scheme to avoid having to give a building notice or deposit full plans.
P
Paul_C
What is obtuse about it? I've simply pointed out that there is no statutory obligation to comply with BS7671. That's a simple fact.
Anyone who tries to tell a homeowner that his installation must be done to BS7671 by law is, therefore, not telling the truth. Maybe he's genuinely mistaken, or maybe he's one of those who thinks that BS7671 is the be all and end all of electrical work, that it should be compulsory, and that he'll try to force it on everyone by misleading statements about legal requirements. Or maybe he's just worried that if he tells the truth about his scheme membership he'll lose the job so it's better for him to make the homeowner think that it's a legal requirement. But either way, to suggest that it is a statutory requirement is just as unacceptable as that bathroom company suggesting that the replacement consumer unit is required by law.
Then what are you arguing about?
Er, no...... If somebody chooses to follow BS7671 then that's almost certainly going to be accepted as being compliance with the legal requirement of Part P. It can't suddenly create legislation which makes compliance with BS7671 a statutory requirement in itself.
Besides.....
Even if that were the case, why would anyone declare that he intends to follow BS7671 if, in fact, he doesn't intend to do so? Rather makes it a moot point, surely?
Perhaps so. But that still doesn't make it acceptable to tell a customer that compliance with BS7671 is mandatory. Such a claim is still incorrect, and unacceptable.
Only indirectly because all of the schemes require members to work to BS7671. Hence my earlier comment about misleading untruths above.
P.S. Do we have to have 1800-pixel wide "IF" images? For anyone using more modest displays they're far too big to be seen as a whole and just result in having to scroll back and forth horizontally down the entire page to read the posts. Come on, bold and a few point sizes larger is quite adequate to emphasize a word.
It's not just modest displays either !
But you know the answer to that question - this is BAS we're talking about and his goal in life seems to be to annoy as many people as he can.
Not his only goal, but I'm pleased for him that this seems to be one of his goals that he has succeeded in realising!
Kind Regards, John.
It seems that even when I repeated the IF, as in IF someone makes it his way to comply with the law then he has made it required by law, as large as I could, you still refuse, or are unable to see the word or to recognise its presence in a logical progression.
As I said - you are being obtuse, but only you know if you are choosing to pretend I never used the word IF, or if you are genuinely incapable of recognising it.
I wasn't arguing - I was trying, (in a ridiculous triumph of hope over expectation, given your track record) to get you to understand a logical series of consequences.
But yet again you have shown that either through deliberate or genuine obtuseness you refuse or are genuinely unable to think logically.
1) A customer has chosen to have the work done by a registered electrician.
2) The registered electrician is required by his scheme to comply with BS 7671.
3) If the electrician does not comply with BS 7671 he is not providing his customer with the service the customer contracted for.
4) If he does not comply with BS 7671 he is no longer entitled to avoid applying for Building Regulations in advance because he is no longer working to the standard required by the organisation which would allow him to avoid it.
5) For him to provide the service contracted by his customer (surely a legal requirement?) and for him to legally avoid advance notification he has to work to BS 7671.
6) Failing to work to BS 7671 results in breach of contract and contravention of the Building Regulations.
And you don't think that for that particular electrician for that particular job the fact that failing to comply with BS 7671 results in both civil and criminal offences makes complying with it a legal requirement?
Apparently it's not.
You cannot or will not see that it is there and you cannot or will not accept what consequences arise from it.
Oh look - another member of the hard-of-thinking club.
The sad thing is that you clearly have the potential to make very valuable contributions to this forum, but you make it so difficult to see those trees through the wood. My fear is that the day may come when your perceived effects on the image of the forum (particularly in the eyes of newcomers) reaches the point at which your opportunity to make valuable contributions becomes curtailed.
Kind Regards, John.
Perhaps you should take that complaint to those who falsely accuse me of wanting to upset people, and who steadfastly refuse to recognise the basic principle that choices can have logical consequences.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
- Status
Sponsored Links
