Is An Isolator In A Shower/bath Area Acceptable

[ban-all-sheds]

The fact remains that that regulation exists, and makes it compulsory to use good workmanship etc.

So what do you do, if in your expert opinion, which you have been engaged to provide, and which therefore you are obliged, contractually and morally to deliver to to the highest standard you can, good workmanship was not done?

 

[JohnW2]

The fact remains that that regulation exists, and makes it compulsory to use good workmanship etc. ... So what do you do, if in your expert opinion, which you have been engaged to provide, and which therefore you are obliged, contractually and morally to deliver to to the highest standard you can, good workmanship was not done?

The same as in any other situation, I suppose. If you are confident that your expert opinion is one which would be shared by a substantial body of other experts, then you code the non-compliance as for any other.

The problem, of course, that it's far more difficult to have that confidence in relation to a reg as vague and subjective as 134.1.1. than it is for an explicit regulation, which merely requires one to have the ability to read. I suspect that, for this reason, non-compliance with 134.1.1 is probably very rarely cited on EICRs, except in the most extreme of cases, since people just don't want to risk invoking the hassle of have to justify/argue about their expert opinion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

The fact remains that that regulation exists, and makes it compulsory to use good workmanship etc.

So what do you do, if in your expert opinion, which you have been engaged to provide, and which therefore you are obliged, contractually and morally to deliver to to the highest standard you can, good workmanship was not done?

Good workmanship was used in the OPs installation. It all works, and it's not going to kill anyone. What more do you want?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I want you to remember why I mentioned 134.1.1 in the first place...

 

[RF Lighting]

There is no regulation which the OPs installation contravenes, not even 134.1.1

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'll jog your memory.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

I used to do a lot of PIRs and have on the odd occasion been pulled up on them and asked to justify my findings. I saw many things I didn't like and could have definately been done better, but the purpose of an EICR is to ascertain whether the installation complies with the current edition of BS7671.

I now quote the regulation number which is not complied with after every observation.

OK - I did not quote you more fully, only the last sentence.

But it was in the post immediately after yours. The context was your post.

You said "I saw many things I didn't like and could have definately been done better" but (seemed to me) were indicating that your scope to comment was limited by the fact that the purpose of an EICR is to ascertain whether the installation complies with the current edition of BS7671, and you (seemed to me) felt that your hands were tied because you could not make any observations unless you could quote the regulation number which is not complied with after every one.

I was pointing out that you have 134.1.1 available.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However..

There is no regulation which the OPs installation contravenes, not even 134.1.1

RF - never in a month of Sundays can this be called good workmanship:

Untitled

• ppuch1
• 5 Aug 2013
• 1

It is sh*te.

And you know it is.

 

[RF Lighting]

RF - never in a month of Sundays can this be called good workmanship

Yes it is.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The fact remains that that regulation exists, and makes it compulsory to use good workmanship etc. ... So what do you do, if in your expert opinion, which you have been engaged to provide, and which therefore you are obliged, contractually and morally to deliver to to the highest standard you can, good workmanship was not done?

The same as in any other situation, I suppose. If you are confident that your expert opinion is one which would be shared by a substantial body of other experts, then you code the non-compliance as for any other.

An interesting position.

Remember that we must necessarily be talking C3s here.

You think that if a professional is engaged to give his expert opinion, that what he has to do is to give what he thinks would be the majority opinion of a large group of professionals whom he does not know and who have different levels of experience and (quite possibly) qualifications to him.

I disagree - I believe that he is engaged to give his opinion.

I suspect that, for this reason, non-compliance with 134.1.1 is probably very rarely cited on EICRs, except in the most extreme of cases, since people just don't want to risk invoking the hassle of have to justify/argue about their expert opinion.

They would, should, never have to.

Their opinion my well be informed by accepted standards etc, but when it comes down to it, it is their opinion. Others may have other opinions, but that would not make them wrong to be saying "In my expert opinion this is not good workmanship".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

RF - never in a month of Sundays can this be called good workmanship

Yes it is.

So you'd do this sort of thing, would you?

Untitled

• ppuch1
• 5 Aug 2013
• 1

You'd be proud to show it as evidence of the standards of your workmanship?

You'd claim, on websites, promotional flyers etc that if people employed you then that was the quality of work they could look forward to getting?

Oon the one hand you do work like this:

And on the other you'd be just as proud of work like that in the OP's photo?

 

[RF Lighting]

Nope, but I as most professional electricians carry out great, excellent, or superb workmanship. Good is when it works and is safe. I go beyond that on every job as does every one who cares about the job they're doing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Good is when it works and is safe.

Nonsense.

I really do not believe that you can genuinely consider the work shown by the OP to be good.

"Acceptable", "commonplace", "to be expected", "safe", "functional", "normal" - none of those matter.

What matters is whether, as a professional electrician, you consider it to be GOOD workmanship.

 

[JohnW2]

The same as in any other situation, I suppose. If you are confident that your expert opinion is one which would be shared by a substantial body of other experts, then you code the non-compliance as for any other.

An interesting position. ... You think that if a professional is engaged to give his expert opinion, that what he has to do is to give what he thinks would be the majority opinion of a large group of professionals whom he does not know and who have different levels of experience and (quite possibly) qualifications to him.

I said nothing about "majority opinion" - as you correctly quoted, I talked about "a substantial body of other experts". It's not a 'position' which I've invented myself - it's exactly the same test that courts and professional regulatory bodies use to decide whether "expert opinion" (or "expert practice") actually can/should be regarded as "expert". In all these cases, the "substantial body" may only be a few percent, but if someone claiming to be giving an 'expert opinion' cannot demonstrate that even that proportion of other 'experts' would share his/her opinion, then the 'expert' status of their opinion is unlikely to be accepted.

Remember that we must necessarily be talking C3s here.

It's not really relevant to what I've just said, but I'm not at all sure that such is necessarily the case.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

What matters is whether, as a professional electrician, you consider it to be GOOD workmanship.

Can you prove that it isn't?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can I prove that this is not good workmanship?

Dear God.

If you say that it is then either you are saying that for the sake of creating an argument, or if you really do think it is good then I pity you, and even more I pity anybody who has the great misfortune to be on the receiving end of work done by someone with such abysmally low standards.