householder wiring a circuit

[ban-all-sheds]

Being the person responsible for the design and construction does not necessary mean that you have to be the person who carried out every single aspect of that design and construction.

Same old nonsense.

An electrician who is brought in after the event to "certificate" work done by a DIYer has NOT been responsible for the design and construction.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, we all know (or should know) that, in many situations, is is quite ridiculous to believe/expect that the person who signs that declaration (as the person 'responsible') will actually have done all (or necessarily any) of the work referred to.

None of those situations include work of such limited scale as running a supply to a garden shed.

If you recall, the last time you tried this argument you cited, in support of it, the multi-year design of a hugely complex machine with millions of parts made by thousands of companies in different countries.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You could always use a multi-signature form!

You could.

Do you think that in this case the OP would be justified in making those declarations regarding design and construction?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

how can you reasonably expect a professional electrician to say that she did it all?

If we follow BAS's logical interpretation of the rules then every electrical installation would have to be carried out entirely by one person working on their own.

I being the person responsible for the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below)

I being the person responsible all in the singular. Not I/We being the person(s) responsible

Or people could stop behaving as if they were idiots who are totally unaware of the fact that a firm which employs people is a legal entity.

 

[JohnW2]

You could always use a multi-signature form!

One could, but I don't think it would make any difference to BAS's argument, since all three declarations contain:

"... I [or I/We] being the person [or person(s)] responsible for .... having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the ....

Just as it seems that not enough thought went into the wording of a good few regulations in BS7671, I think the same is true of these declarations. In bot cases, that allows BAS to talk about literal compliance with "what the words actually say", even if that interpretation makes little sense (and is almost certainly not what was 'intended').

In this case, I think the contentious issues would go away if the declarations had said something like "...when carrying out and/or surpervising the ...".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Or people could stop behaving as if they were idiots who are totally unaware of the fact that a firm which employs people is a legal entity.

That's true, and the forms we are talking about allow indication that the declarations are being signed "for and on behalf of" that legal entity. However, whilst that may 'square things up' in legal terms, it doesn't alter the fact that people will often be signing the declaration in relation to work which they have in no way 'carried out' and which, at best, they have 'supervised' (or be deemed to have supervised, by virtue of their position within the company).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just as it seems that not enough thought went into the wording of a good few regulations in BS7671, I think the same is true of these declarations. In bot cases, that allows BAS to talk about literal compliance with "what the words actually say", even if that interpretation makes little sense (and is almost certainly not what was 'intended').

Oh look - JohnW2 doesn't like what a "regulation" says, so he decides that the people who wrote it actually intended it to mean something else, and blow me, what a surprise, he thinks they intended it to mean what he wants it to mean.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, whilst that may 'square things up' in legal terms, it doesn't alter the fact that people will often be signing the declaration in relation to work which they have in no way 'carried out' and which, at best, they have 'supervised' (or be deemed to have supervised, by virtue of their position within the company).

But that's the whole point - it is the company which has carried out the work, and by virtue of their position within the company they are giving physical reality to a signed declaration made by the company that the company was responsible for and carried out the work.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

You could always use a multi-signature form!

You could.

Do you think that in this case the OP would be justified in making those declarations regarding design and construction?

In this case, no!
As it is evident that the OP has very little clue or experience in either.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed I did.

Is there a point you wish to make?

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed I did. Is there a point you wish to make?

What (and who) on earth does this relate to?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

PBoD originally just quoted - didn't add any reply of his own.

 

[JohnW2]

But that's the whole point - it is the company which has carried out the work, and by virtue of their position within the company they are giving physical reality to a signed declaration made by the company that the company was responsible for and carried out the work.

It's not specifically companies that matter but, as you have said, "legal entitities" - and that includes "sole traders" (who may engage the {paid or unpaid} services of employees/'helpers'). Furthermore, a good few electricians, even if essentially 'on their own', function within the framework of a (limited or unlimited) company - which, again, is obviously a "legal entity".

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Indeed I did.

Is there a point you wish to make?

PBoD originally just quoted - didn't add any reply of his own.

I had added a reply, but seems it had not been immediately processed.
Sorry for any confusion!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's not specifically companies that matter but, as you have said, "legal entitities"

FYI, I wrote what I did because of this:

...people will often be signing the declaration in relation to work which they have in no way 'carried out' and which, at best, they have 'supervised' (or be deemed to have supervised, by virtue of their position within the company).