Is An Isolator In A Shower/bath Area Acceptable

[ban-all-sheds]

Who do you think it is that shares your view that purely aesthetic issues should be regarded as failures to comply with the Wiring Regs?

Who do you think shares my view that they would not say that that shower installation was an example of good workmanship?

 

[JohnW2]

Who do you think shares my view that they would not say that that shower installation was an example of good workmanship?

AFAIAA, we have yet to hear from anyone who believes that it should be recorded on an EICR as non-compliant with 134.1.1.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We'll come to that.

First of all, can we establish whether you think it is good workmanship, or not, and how common you think it would be for other people to regard it as good workmanship, or not.

The starting position has to be totally detached from the Wiring Regulations. When you see that is your verdict, or that of others you imagine, "that is good workmanship"?

 

[RF Lighting]

It works and it's safe, so all's good.

Maybe you're just used to seeing the great work which most professionals carry out that when something falls below that standard you wrongly assume it is not acceptable. This is not the case.

The work isn't brilliant, but it isn't dreadful or none compliant. It's somewhere in the middle. What's that word between dreadful and brilliant?

Oh yeah. Good.

 

[JohnW2]

First of all, can we establish whether you think it is good workmanship, or not, and how common you think it would be for other people to regard it as good workmanship, or not. ... The starting position has to be totally detached from the Wiring Regulations. ...

That's the whole point - it can't be so detached. The phrase "good workmanship" has different meanings in different contexts. The context we are talking about in regulation 134.1.1 of the Wiring Regs.

You are being unnecessarily pedantic and stubborn. You know that, in a general everyday sense, most of us would not describe something as 'good workmanship' if we were not happy with the aesthetics - but you also know that most (probably virtually all) of us would not want to see 'that sort of non-good workmanship', alone, being used to claim non-compliance with 134.1.1.

Kind Regards, John

 

[rjm2k]

If that was anywhere other than in a bathroom/above a shower, would it be considered "Good Workmanship" or at least acceptable and to the regs even if it isn't pretty?

If so, then it appears the ONLY reason it's considered by some as not "Good Workmanship" is the location, but if it's to the Regs for that location (apart from the regs debatable definition of "Good Workmanship") then surely it's "OK".

To me as a layperson, in this situation "Good workmanship" would be along the lines of

Appropriate accessory used for the location? Yes (according to the regs)

Appropriate accessory used for the appliance? Yes

Appropriate cable used and terminals correctly tightened? You have to assume so.

Earthed? You have to assume so.

RCD? You have to assume so.

Tested? You have to assume so.

No bare conductors? Yes

No inner insulation visible? Yes

Outer sheath correctly mated with accessory/appliance? Yes (assuming the top entry hole is correctly sealed)

No cable/sheath/accessory damage? Correct

All accessories/cables/appliances securely fastened? Yes

Etc etc

"Does it look pretty" isn't really an option is it?

Very often, the only definition of "good workmanship" is a reference to complying with guidelines.

I don't think I'd like it in my house mind, it's bl**dy ugly!!!!

 

[JohnW2]

If that was anywhere other than in a bathroom/above a shower, would it be considered "Good Workmanship" or at least acceptable and to the regs even if it isn't pretty?

Very good question - you'd have to ask BAS. I rather suspect that he would regard the visible surface-clipped cable as being 'bad workmanship' in most rooms.

To me as a layperson, in this situation "Good workmanship" would be along the lines of ... <list of reasonable requirements of 'good workmanship> ... "Does it look pretty" isn't really an option is it?

I certainly agree with you, and I suspect that most others would.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It works and it's safe, so all's good.

Non sequitor.

Maybe you're just used to seeing the great work which most professionals carry out that when something falls below that standard you wrongly assume it is not acceptable. This is not the case.

Acceptable is not the same as good.

If you went to a restaurant for a meal, and the food wasn't so bad you couldn't eat it, it didn't make you ill, the service was acceptable, but there was nothing actually enjoyable about any part of the experience, would that be all you needed to say to your friends "you should go there, the food is good"?

Forget for a moment anything to do with the Wiring Regulations - if you were standing there commenting on the work, would the phrase "Yes - he did a good job there", or "Yup, that is good work" etc, pass your lips?

Would you really use the word 'good'?

If you had an apprentice, and he presented you with that, would you really say to him "Good job, lad"?

If a child of yours just scraped a pass in some exams, would you say "he got good results"?

The work isn't brilliant, but it isn't dreadful or none compliant. It's somewhere in the middle. What's that word between dreadful and brilliant?

Oh yeah. Good.

The very first entry for "good" in my dictionary reads:

having admirable, pleasing, superior, or positive qualities; not negative, bad or mediocre.

I take it that you're now going to start disagreeing with the publishers of the dictionary?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's the whole point - it can't be so detached.

Don't be ridiculous.

The phrase "good workmanship" has different meanings in different contexts. The context we are talking about in regulation 134.1.1 of the Wiring Regs.

No - the context is that of good workmanship.

Do you think it is good workmanship, or not, and how common do you think it would be for other people to regard it as good workmanship, or not?

You are being unnecessarily pedantic and stubborn. You know that, in a general everyday sense, most of us would not describe something as 'good workmanship' if we were not happy with the aesthetics

THEN IT IS NOT GOOD WORKMANSHIP, IS IT!

but you also know that most (probably virtually all) of us would not want to see 'that sort of non-good workmanship', alone, being used to claim non-compliance with 134.1.1.

134.1.1 requires good workmanship. If it is not good workmanship then it clearly does not comply.

 

[JohnW2]

134.1.1 requires good workmanship. If it is not good workmanship then it clearly does not comply.

You have made your point, more times than I can be bothered to count, and I wish you well with your views. In the meantime, I presume that those who actually undertake EICRs will continue to apply their views when deciding whether something is non-compliant with 134.1.1. Everyone should therefore be happy with their own positions.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Jackrae]

Just want an opinion on this guys. I know what I would do but it seems the NIC think it's acceptable ...

I have posted this on another forum but wanted to get a wider opinion.

Untitled

• ppuch1
• 5 Aug 2013
• 1

Well you certainly put the fox into the chicken run with that one but at least you got a few opinions.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If that was anywhere other than in a bathroom/above a shower, would it be considered "Good Workmanship" or at least acceptable and to the regs even if it isn't pretty?

In a garage, or a shed perhaps? Even then there would have been ways to do it better.

To me as a layperson, in this situation "Good workmanship" would be along the lines of

{a long list of things which are all covered by other regulations}

"Does it look pretty" isn't really an option is it?

Why not?

If someone did work like thaat in your house, would your verdict be "Yup - that's good quality, I'm happy with that"?

Do you really not care how things are done, as long as they are safe, or might you think that good workmanship does encompass appearance?

Very often, the only definition of "good workmanship" is a reference to complying with guidelines.

It is not so defined in this case.

And if that were to be the definition, what on earth would be the point of having it at all?

I don't think I'd like it in my house mind, it's bl**dy ugly!!!!

So, good workmanship, or not?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the meantime, I presume that those who actually undertake EICRs will continue to apply their views when deciding whether something is non-compliant with 134.1.1. Everyone should therefore be happy with their own positions.

So they should.

But IMO the only professional, responsible position to take is to be honest, and to the best of ones ability judge whether the workmanship has admirable, pleasing, superior, or positive qualities; not negative, bad or mediocre ones.

The irresponsible, unprofessional thing to do is to look at something described, variously as "I hate it", "not ideal", "a dog of a job", "a pig's breakfast", "bl**dy ugly", and say "I'm going to judge the workmanship as being admirable, pleasing, superior, and having positive qualities, not negative, bad or mediocre ones, because I don't want the hassle of having to justify myself if my client decides he doesn't like my expert opinion".

 

[RF Lighting]

If you had an apprentice, and he presented you with that, would you really say to him "Good job, lad"?

It depends on what sort of job I've asked him to do. The customer might be a young single mother who has just lost her job, and can not afford to pay expensive electricians bills. If she said please can you get my shower on and working safely so I can bath my child, but as cheaply as possible so I can still afford to feed her. I'm not botherd how it looks, as long as it works", then that's what she gets. Customer is king.

The work isn't brilliant, but it isn't dreadful or none compliant. It's somewhere in the middle. What's that word between dreadful and brilliant?

Oh yeah. Good.

The very first entry for "good" in my dictionary reads:

having admirable, pleasing, superior, or positive qualities; not negative, bad or mediocre.

I take it that you're now going to start disagreeing with the publishers of the dictionary?

The customer might say "I admire you for keeping costs down, as I really have very little money" or "I'm pleased that I've now got a working shower" or "This new shower is far superior to not having shower"


I work on commercial jobs where all the wiring is LSF cable in steel containment. Is that good workmanship? I'd say so. Does that mean that anything less than LSF in steel is not good workmanship, and therefore is non compliant with BS7671?


When I passed my driving test, the only car I could afford was a Vauxhall Astra. It was about 10 years old, the paint was faded, there were a few dents on the bodywork, and some rust on one of the wings. It didn't have power steering or electric windows or air con. Despite all that, it was a good little car. It started every morning, got me to work and back every day, and sailed through it's MOT.


Should the MOT center have flagged up all of it's shortcomings because it wasn't a mercedes E class, and didn't look as nice as perhaps it could have?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All this twisting and turning just makes you look more and more pathetic.

There is no way to dress up that workmanship as good, but you are so desperate to try that you are making yourself look a fool.