Plumbers' favourite 412.2.3.2
Is an extractor fan in cloakroom notifiable?
- Thread starter doinuptheouse
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Noted...
EFLI beat me whilst I was typing another messageTrouble finding that regulation can you help
Kind Regards, John
Ooooh - you really shouldn't temp fate - it's been quite quiet around here for a while
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Not wanting to offend you, I should say that this really is a serious question from me which follows ....
Is what you have written a serious question, to which you want me to provide an answer?
Kind Regards, John
It's not a sarcastic question John. If you are referring to Building Inspectors; for DIY work they rely on the Electrical report and don't know enough about the regs to question the details (in most cases)
If you are referring to scheme inspectors, I'd be interested in your experince in this arena. IME the inspectors are not there to trip us up.
OOPs, meant to edit
OK, I understand. The reason I was 'treading on eggshells' was that you appeared (to me!) to be asking what 'Jobsworth' meant - and, since I found it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't be familiar with the use of the word, I was a bit nervous about 'what was going on'
Anyway, it's now clear that what you were really asking was "Which Mr Jobsworth?". The answer is that I didn't have any particular class of person in mind, certainly not specifically Buiding Inspectors (of whom I have very limited experience) or Scheme Inspectors (of whom, as you would expect, I have zero experience). Rather, I was referring generally to anyone/everyone who feels very strongly that, because of what BS7671 says, they (and/or others) are obliged to work 'blindly' to the every letter of what MIs say - either because they 'just do' feel that, or because they are scheme members who are (or believe they are) constrained by their scheme operator to 'total compliance' with BS7671.
In fact, I wasn't really thinking of any sort of 'inspector' in the formal sense of those you mention. Indeed, the one example I gave was of an electrician undertaking an EICR who coded the 'solution' posted above by EFLI as non-compliant with BS7671, because it did not literally have the '3-pole isolator' called for by the MIs (even though all three conductors were being isolated). It's not uncommon on forums like this to see electricians advising that 'MIs must be followed' even when they imply (sometimes even say) that the believe that there is little/no electrical justification - and some admit that they do things (like install fan isolators, maybe even FCUs for fans) only because the MIs say so, and they therefore feel obliged to 'comply with BS7671 by complying with the MIs'.
Kind Regards, John
Well, court is where Mr Jobsworth ends up unless he walks away from the point where he is not paid for his EICR on the grounds of incompetence.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that I could, in court, make a pretty good fist of dismantling and shredding the credibility of Mr Jobsworth, and I'd begin with the piece of paper he signed where it said "I ......... having exercised reasonable skill and care ........ " and proceed quite rapidly through issues of how much he actually understood, how much he actually thought, and how reasonably skilful and careful it was to criticise an arrangement which isolated all the poles supplying an appliance just because it wasn't the way that it was usually done. In passing we would explore his understanding of 120.4.
Anybody who does that is not exercising reasonable skill and care, because someone in that position has been engaged to give a skilful and professional and careful judgement on the condition of an electrical installation, not an unthinking tick-the-box-list of compliance checks against a set of "regulations" which can quickly be shown to be riddled with inconsistencies and impossible requirements.
In what other field of human endeavour are "inspectors" allowed to be less competent, less experienced, and less able to think than the people who did whatever they are inspecting?
(Apart from the CQCR
)We're not really talking about "less competent, less experienced and less able to think". Rather, we are talking about "more stringent in demanding strict adherence to rules/regulations", which is probably true of (in some senses 'required of') many an 'inspector' in many a field of human endeavour.
In common sense terms, I obviously agree with you, but some (particualarly 'inspectors') may well feel that it is not the place of individuals to use 'thinking, knowledge and experience' to 'over-ride' the strict word of the regulations to which they are meant to be working. For example, given the statement in BS7671 that 'thou shalt follow MIs' and MIs saying 'thou shalt use a 3-pole isolator', someone who says that the literal absence of a 3-pole isolator indicates non-compliance is really merely 'strictly obeying the regulations'.
This situation obviously should not arise, since regulations should be written such that strict adherence to those regulations does not conflict with common sense. That's what needs sorting.
Kind Regards, John
I know you like a good discussion but I must admit that when you 'started' this one I thought you were being humourous.
Obviously an inspector could make a mistake and get something wrong in any report.
However, and I cannot find a definition for an electrical pole other than a long slender piece of wood etc. for supporting wires, whether a 'three pole isolator' is a device which isolates three poles or a device which contains three poles is not stated within any manufactures instructions.
Had they stated that the circuit must have three pole isolation rather than a three pole isolator then there, presumably, would be no conflict.
With the circuit in question, had an isolator that contained three poles been fitted but only two of the poles used then that would cover any pedants requirements but be no different.
Could an ultra-pedantic inspector complain because there was a switched neutral?
Should an idiot inspector be employed for this work then I am afraid an explanation and argument would have to ensue in order to enlighten a moron.
Obviously an inspector could make a mistake and get something wrong in any report.
However, and I cannot find a definition for an electrical pole other than a long slender piece of wood etc. for supporting wires, whether a 'three pole isolator' is a device which isolates three poles or a device which contains three poles is not stated within any manufactures instructions.
Had they stated that the circuit must have three pole isolation rather than a three pole isolator then there, presumably, would be no conflict.
With the circuit in question, had an isolator that contained three poles been fitted but only two of the poles used then that would cover any pedants requirements but be no different.
Could an ultra-pedantic inspector complain because there was a switched neutral?
Should an idiot inspector be employed for this work then I am afraid an explanation and argument would have to ensue in order to enlighten a moron.
You're dead right - it was intended really as a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek comment, but BAS started taking me seriously, and the 'discussion' flowed from that! In fact, if you look back, that's how quite a lot of my 'good' (often a bit tedious!) discussions arise - by people perhaps not fully understanding my sense of humour and taking some of my light-hearted comments far too seriously!
However, that discussion has illustrated that an 'ultra-pedantic' (probably a rather unfair term for someone 'ultra-observant' with the words of regulations) might have an issue to raise and, as you say "Had they stated that the circuit must have three pole isolation rather than a three pole isolator then there, presumably, would be no conflict.". IMO, that's true.
Now you're stretching my mind! In what way could even an 'ultra-pedantic inspector' find a regulatory problem with a switched neutral? Would he also complain about every DP switch he found in the installation (whether it be in switches, FCUs, sockets or wherever) - and, if so, why?
In common sense terms, I obviously agree - and I would certainly be the first person to argue with him. However, as I recently wrote, it's really the regulations which are the problem - since they should not be such that a need to argue with someone who was simply 'following the word of the regulations' could arise! In the situation we're discussing, it's a bit more complicated, since it's actually the MIs which are really the problem. I suppose the only way the regs could deal with this is by allowing more flexibility and discretion in relation to 'compliance with MIs', rather than the present wording which appears to imply that total adherence to the MIs (no matter what they say!) is required.
As for the actual issue, it does not really matter to me personally at all - I am unlikley to worry about having a fan isolator at all, regardless of the number of 'poles'!
Kind Regards, John
120.4
No - he is unable to see that the FCU isolates 3 poles.
How many people keep the MIs for fans anyway?
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
Sponsored Links
