I don't need to.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 am utterly confident that for as long as 134.1.1 says what it does, my position is correct.
I don't need to.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.
There are also several examples of people saying that it is not good workmanship.
I don't need to.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 am utterly confident that for as long as 134.1.1 says what it does, my position is correct.
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?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.
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.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'.
They've used words which should be no trouble at all except to those too lazy or too scared to actually apply them.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!
My position is that the words mean what they say.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.
Oh well - I thought I'd offer you a little bit of 'benefit of the doubt', but I clearly was being over-benevolent.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.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'.
Safe and functional alone is not enough to qualify as good.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.
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.
Apart from not being good workmanship.If the job was specced for surface cable by the client it would be compliant.
Even it it was requested, it is still not good.
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: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?
'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."This Standard contains the rules for the design and erection of electrical installations for safety and proper functioning for the intended use"
This does not make the electrician who installs the equipment guilty of bad workmanship in breach of 7671.
I think that people paying for a service should have every right to expect it to be done very well.
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?To say that this job does not fall under the description of 'good workmanship' is . . . erm acceptable.
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