Lollipop

[JohnW2]

They got the plumbers to 'ream out' copper T pieces and slip them over the pipe then run a piece of pipe to the adjacent pipe, ie this linked 2 pipes together without a water connexion and still the inspectors of the time wanted to see earth clips doing the same job.

Maybe the plumber forgot to put G/Y identification markings on the piece of waterless pipe which was 'bonding' the two adjacent ones?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Maybe the plumber forgot to put G/Y identification markings on the piece of waterless pipe which was 'bonding' the two adjacent ones?

Kind Regards, John

But we could never understand why soldered copper fittings were not good enough.

 

[JohnW2]

But we could never understand why soldered copper fittings were not good enough.

Ah, but you're forgetting that Mr Jobsworth may even have rejected a copper cable (of adequate CSA) between two cable clamps if it didn't have G/Y (or any!) insulation/sleeving!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Never assume those in charge know what they are doing.

 

[securespark]

I had an inspector query my work to the 15th... supplementary in an adjacent airing cupboard.

A. It's in the airing cupboard. it should be in the bathroom.
B. You used 6 milli instead of 4.

Kept banging on that 547-4 says 2.5 if protected and 4 if not.

But 6 is bigger than 4....Yes, but it should be 4. Brain-dead!

 

[SUNRAY]

²

used 6 milli instead of 4.

Kept banging on that 547-4 says 2.5 if protected and 4 if not.

But 6 is bigger than 4....Yes, but it should be 4. Brain-dead!

I refurbed my first house including damp course injection and replastering. I removed seals cut out and meter and removed them from wall, provided temp arrangements while work was done which included total rewire/replumb.
I had a roll of 16mm² yellow so used it with occasional green tape markings.
When board came to inspect/re-sea,l the tick sheet called for 10mm and he was going to reject.
Also made me remove the trunking I'd installed for the meter tails.

 

[securespark]

I did a shower circuit for my Mum in 1986.

As I wanted the circuit to be future-proof, I put 10 milli T&E in.

In those days, a bloke from Norweb would come round to inspect before connecting the additional load.

He wouldn't connect it until I had swapped the 45A MCB for a 45A 1361 and upgraded the MEB's to 6 milli.

 

[bernardgreen]

In 1980 in preparation for building our house I put two RCDs at the temporary meter location. One fed the CU for the caravan ( just one ring final ) and the other fed the supply to the building site.

Meter installer arrived and refused to install the meter as two RCDs was not compliant. I wasn't on site so could not change the situation. A phone call to his boss explaining the need for lights if an accident on site tripped the power. Meter installer returned a couple of days later to fit the meter.

 

[JohnW2]

In 1980 in preparation for building our house I put two RCDs at the temporary meter location. One fed the CU for the caravan ( just one ring final ) and the other fed the supply to the building site. ... Meter installer arrived and refused to install the meter as two RCDs was not compliant.

Hmmmm!

Of course, if everything (caravan + building site') being supplied from the 'incoming supply' (and meter) was regarded as 'one installation', then, unless there was some sort of isolator upstream of the two RCDs, then he may well have been strictly correct - since (at least in terms of current regs today) there has to be 'a single point of isolation' for an installation.

However, strict compliance with regulations and common sense do not always correspond.

Mind you, computers can be worse than human Jobsworths. In the early days of 'computerisation' (probably in the 70s), computer-generated letters to me from a utility company were (despite many conversations with humans) getting increasingly 'heavy' with me (threatening me with court action etc.) about my failure to pay a bill for £0.00. In the end, I was persuaded by a human to write out a cheque for £0.00 and send it to them. That satisfied the computer, but the conversation I subsequently had to have with my bank manager was rather interesting! Were it not for the hassle, I would have loved it to have 'gone to court' - I suspect I might even have got some 'damages' to compensate me for all of the time I'd spent trying to sort it out!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Mind you, computers can be worse than human Jobsworths. In the early days of 'computerisation' (probably in the 70s), computer-generated letters to me from a utility company were (despite many conversations with humans) getting increasingly 'heavy' with me (threatening me with court action etc.) about my failure to pay a bill for £0.00. In the end, I was persuaded by a human to write out a cheque for £0.00 and send it to them. That satisfied the computer, but the conversation I subsequently had to have with my bank manager was rather interesting! Were it not for the hassle, I would have loved it to have 'gone to court' - I suspect I might even have got some 'damages' to compensate me for all of the time I'd spent trying to sort it out!

Kind Regards, John

Sadly you were not the only one. I had one similar which got sorted out after half a dozen phone calls, ironically I came across the correspondence from 1985 recently and binned it otherwise it would have long been forgotten in the mists of time. The other was resolved by me purchasing something else using my access card and asking for a refund which was done with cash, this put another transaction on the account which resulted in a zero balance. I recall many such conversations of that era, thankfully it has improved... or has it?

 

[bernardgreen]

, unless there was some sort of isolator upstream of the two RCDs,

There was, meter tails went to a CU as the single isolation point. Four MCBs, during building only two used to feed caravan and builders panel.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The other was resolved by me purchasing something else using my access card and asking for a refund which was done with cash, this put another transaction on the account which resulted in a zero balance. I recall many such conversations of that era, thankfully it has improved... or has it?

I had a related experience with a card, much more recently than the '70s.

Bought something using a card, which we do for absolutely everything we can for convenience, consumer protection and rewards. We always clear the balance each month.

The something got returned, and the retailer credited our card, so come payment time we paid off what the balance actually was , only to be stung with an interest charge the following month because a credit does not count as a payment, so the balance they used to work out charges was (actual balance + credits). Apparently I should have paid more and ended up with the card company owing me money in order to avoid paying interest.

 

[SUNRAY]

I had a related experience with a card, much more recently than the '70s.

Bought something using a card, which we do for absolutely everything we can for convenience, consumer protection and rewards. We always clear the balance each month.

The something got returned, and the retailer credited our card, so come payment time we paid off what the balance actually was , only to be stung with an interest charge the following month because a credit does not count as a payment, so the balance they used to work out charges was (actual balance + credits). Apparently I should have paid more and ended up with the card company owing me money in order to avoid paying interest.

Cheeky b-a-stards, never come across it myself.

It has to count at some stage surely, else there would be a permanent debt.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, when does the credit become a credit and not a debit?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

When it is made by the cardholder.

Their idea was that I should pay more than I actually owed them, and then when that put my account into credit either ask them to pay it to me or simply spend that amount somewhere.