Is An Isolator In A Shower/bath Area Acceptable

[ban-all-sheds]

Ring the IET and ask THEM how THEY define "good workmanship" and then come back here and tell us what they said, word for word.

I don't need to.

I am utterly confident that for as long as 134.1.1 says what it does, my position is correct.

 

[securespark]

There are also several examples of people saying that it is not good workmanship.

WRONG!

There are also several examples of people saying that it is not the most handsome job they have seen.

Just because it does not look pretty does not mean it doers not comply!

 

[securespark]

Ring the IET and ask THEM how THEY define "good workmanship" and then come back here and tell us what they said, word for word.

I don't need to.

I am utterly confident that for as long as 134.1.1 says what it does, my position is correct.

You may well tell me that you care not a jot what I think and that you're in the right because the written word is what it is, but if you were as confident as you say you are, you'd do it. End of.

Which leads me to believe that you are not.

You have just lost rather a lot of credibility, me old sunshine.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Amen! I suspect that, although he does not seem to recognise it (or, at least, admit that he recognises it), he actually may well agree with what I said way back about the unfortunate choice of words used in 134.1.1 - which is just "asking for trouble" when confronted with someone who insists on interpreting them in terms of dictionary definitions.

Or is it asking for trouble when confronted with someone who refuses to interpret them in terms of dictionary definitions, even though there is no legitimate alternative to that?

If we pretended, for a moment, that 134.1.1 didn't exist, and asked BAS whether he thought that compliance with the Wiring Regulations should require a very high aesthetic level of work, as well as being electrically safe and compliant with all the explicit regs, he might even say 'no'.

I accept that it would be difficult to define "a very high aesthetic level of work", but in principle absolutely yes - I think that shoddy work should be forbidden. I think that people paying for a service should have every right to expect it to be done very well.

I think that all of us, probably including BAS, 'know' that BS7671 never intended to require 'beauty' as well as safety - but they have chosen to use words that simply feed those who are looking for something to be pedantic about!

They've used words which should be no trouble at all except to those too lazy or too scared to actually apply them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You may well tell me that you care not a jot what I think and that you're in the right because the written word is what it is, but if you were as confident as you say you are, you'd do it. End of.

Which leads me to believe that you are not.

You have just lost rather a lot of credibility, me old sunshine.

My position is that the words mean what they say.

So it is not up to me to seek confirmation, because it is not I who is suggesting that they do not mean what they say.

 

[JohnW2]

If we pretended, for a moment, that 134.1.1 didn't exist, and asked BAS whether he thought that compliance with the Wiring Regulations should require a very high aesthetic level of work, as well as being electrically safe and compliant with all the explicit regs, he might even say 'no'.

I accept that it would be difficult to define "a very high aesthetic level of work", but in principle absolutely yes - I think that shoddy work should be forbidden. I think that people paying for a service should have every right to expect it to be done very well.

Oh well - I thought I'd offer you a little bit of 'benefit of the doubt', but I clearly was being over-benevolent.

Those able and prepared to pay for the highest aesthetic standard of work obviously should be free so to do - and if that is their choice, they have every right to expect it to be done to a very high aesthetic standard (and can probably involve Trading Standards if it isn't). Those who prefer (or can only afford) to have 'cheaper' work done which is electrically safe, but not so 'pretty', should also be free so to do. Whatever, the IET Wiring Regulations, essentially all about safety, would not be an appropriate vehicle for imposing any aesthetic requirements, even if eveyone did want to pay for 'pretty' work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So nobody who does not think to put it in a contract should have any expectation of any quality standards, for any work, and absolutely no legal redress no matter how disgustingly done the work is?

 

[securespark]

Shoddy means poor quality.

This is not shoddy. As Rob says, it is work done to a certain price point, but is safe and functional nonetheless.

Imagine someone wanting a cooker feed installing in a kitchen. One with the cable and box chased into the wall will obviously be more expensive especially if the cable has to run across tiling. Enclosing the cable in trunking (to lessen its visual impact) has an impact on its current carrying capacity.

So, as the customer does not want to spend more than they have to, they opt for the cheaper, less aesthetic option.

This does not make the electrician who installs the equipment guilty of bad workmanship in breach of 7671.

As long as the cable is clipped firmly to the wall, the box likewise, the EFLI good, CPD correctly selected, all tests within spec, paperwork completed etcetera as per 7671, all is well.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Shoddy means poor quality.

This is not shoddy. As Rob says, it is work done to a certain price point, but is safe and functional nonetheless.

Safe and functional alone is not enough to qualify as good.

Please read what the dictionary says about "good".

So, as the customer does not want to spend more than they have to, they opt for the cheaper, less aesthetic option.

This does not make the electrician who installs the equipment guilty of bad workmanship in breach of 7671.

If the job was specced for surface cable by the client it would be compliant.

Apart from not being good workmanship.

Even it it was requested, it is still not good.

 

[JohnW2]

So nobody who does not think to put it in a contract should have any expectation of any quality standards, for any work, and absolutely no legal redress no matter how disgustingly done the work is?

That's nothing to do with the issue at hand. BS7671 (aka The Wiring Regulations) is not the appropriate place to define required aesthetic standards. The purpose of BS7671, a technical Standard, is summarised in 120.1:

"This Standard contains the rules for the design and erection of electrical installations for safety and proper functioning for the intended use"

'Safety' and 'proper functioning for the intended use', but nothing about appearance, let alone 'beauty'. ... which is what virtually everyone (apparently other than you) would probably expect.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, then, I suggest that all those people who do not agree that BS 7671 should require good workmanship lobby the IET to remove that requirement, or for them to provide their own special definition of "good".

Are you generally in agreement with the idea that if one disagrees with the existence of a regulation, it's OK to decide to ignore it, and argue that the people who wrote it obviously didn't mean it?

 

[seasickstevie]

This does not make the electrician who installs the equipment guilty of bad workmanship in breach of 7671.

The alternative to 'bad workmanship' is not necessarily 'good workmanship'.

There are various descriptive words in-between. Such as 'passable' . . . 'okay' . . . 'alright' . . . 'average' . . . 'acceptable' etc etc.

To say that this job does not fall under the description of 'good workmanship' is . . . erm

acceptable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

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

 

[securespark]

I think that people paying for a service should have every right to expect it to be done very well.

Indeed. I agree.

You expect it to comply with the relevant regulations, ie electrical or plumbing, whatever the situation.

And you expect good workmanship.

But if you are a cost-conscious customer, you will not worry about aesthetics.

If you are the sort of customer where cost is less of an issue but aesthetics is important, then you will be prepared to pay more, for example, to conceal the cable, recess the box, that kind of thing.

 

[JohnW2]

To say that this job does not fall under the description of 'good workmanship' is . . . erm acceptable.

Even if the work had been done in exactly the manner that the customer had requested? In that situation, can you see some way in which the workmanship could have been 'better' without going outside of what the customer had asked for?

However, if you can see any wood through the trees of the unbelievably repetitive discussion (or series of repetitive assertions!), the question of relevance is whether you feel the job should be regarded as non-compliant with BS7671?

Kind Regards, John