Old colours and new colours

[Paul_C]

There is a reasonably long list of ways a policeman in uniform can enter your house without warrant and arrest you. Any indictable offence for example, or even if you don't stop your car when required to do so by constable in uniform.

And there's always the old reasonable cause to believe that a crime is being, or is about to be, committed one. But at least there are nominal limits on when those powers of entry may be exercised, even though we know their credibility might be stretched somewhat these days.

Customs & Excise have to be worst though. It's an absolute travesty of justice that their powers are so draconian and with almost no controls that they can just force their way into anywhere at any time on the flimsiest of reasons.

Article 8 of the ECHR provides protection for your rights in your home, but then provides a long list of times when it doesn't apply, including when neccessary for the public safety, which some on here would argue applies if you use red/black cable instead of blue/brown

Ssshh..... Don't tell anyone, but I still have earths with plain green sleeving or even bare!

The European Charter of Fundamental Rights is another good example. Although it contains some pretty socialist "rights," many of the other items sound quite reasonable if you skim through, and in fact reflect what we would consider to be our existing basic rights under English Common Law.

But then you get to Article 52 which clearly states that any of the preceeding rights may be restricted by law in order to meet "general objectives recognized by the Union." So they're saying they don't really consider them rights at all, since they can override them at will if it suits the EU's political agenda.

Signing up to the CFR was thus tacit acceptance by our government of those restrictions, contrary to our existing Common Law rights. Yet they touted it as being a wonderful recognition and even extension of our rights.

 

[Paul_C]

The law, it seems, has little to deter criminals but plenty of ways to keep the generally law-abiding in fear of transgressing.

And that seems to be one of the very worrying trends. While the penalties for real crimes are getting lighter, the penalties for "crimes" invented by the bureaucrats which nobody would have ever dreamed could exist in Britain a few years ago are becoming increasingly heavier.

When the penalty for the heinous "crime" of putting a wheelie-bin out a day early can exceed the penalty for breaking into somebody's house and making off with his TV, you know the system is completely screwed up.

I understand that under statute they only have a year from the date of completion of the works to investigate and force you to correct any breaches.

I believe it's only 6 months for a lot of things; I know there were proposals to extend that to 2 years for certain items, although I'm not sure if anything came of that. Either way, even at 2 years it's a pretty short statute of limitations.

Unless you're planning on moving soon or doing something else and letting LABC poke around, what are the chances of anyone discovering you did an "unauthorized" CU change within that relatively short period of time?

However, after this period they are able to take out an injunction to force you to correct any breaches but this would only be used in cases where the breaches were a danger to the general public, other than the householder. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely.

And isn't that what the building regulations should be restricted to as a whole? The basic reason for having laws is to protect the rights of people against the actions of others. It's unlawful to commit murder because that violates the other person's right to life. It's unlawful to march into somebody's house and make off with his belongings because that violates his right to enjoyment of his possessions.

Regulations about buildings should impose only those restrictions necessary to protect the rights of others. It's right that you shouldn't be allowed to just run your sewer line to the edge of your property where it will discharge onto somebody else's property and pose a health risk to him, for example.

But the building regulations have no place to be dictating such things as what type of lights you install or how high you place your sockets. Those things do not in any way endanger anybody else or threaten basic rights.

 

[pieman2008i]

slightly OT I found half a roll of old 1.5 twin and earth in my loft, how much to rekon I could get for it on fleabay?

 

[martinxxxxxx]

slightly OT I found half a roll of old 1.5 twin and earth in my loft, how much to rekon I could get for it on fleabay?

£2.50

 

[Paul_C]

Some people seem rather optimistic!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150413468383

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300396186271

 

[JBPElectrics]

"retrospective jobs" Thats why they are charging so much, its a fiddle!

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Anyway according to TTC, joking about old colours being sold on ebay shows you are a dangerous person.

Especially if you put links to the items.

You have been warned

Martin

or maybe he just picks on new members

You would need some cable in the old colours too mind see
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/6mm-cable-red...ls_Supplies_Electrical_ET?hash=item35a4eb2719

Martin, you (and the eBay vendor) are dangerous.

 

[plugwash]

Since replacement of damaged cable is allowed anywhere without notification (provided you only do one circuit as part of any particular job...) it seems like even if you could read the date stamps on the cable (new core colors are not sufficiant since they came in before part P) it would be pretty much impossible to prove that notifiable work had taken place since the introduction of part P unless you had records of the installations condition made between part P's introduction and the work in question and if you had those records use of old cable wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Paul_C]

Since replacement of damaged cable is allowed anywhere without notification

And that's just one of the many things which makes the whole Part P rules so ridiculous. Unless I tell, nobody is ever going to know whether that shiny new cable with a 2009 datestamp on it was just a replacement for a damaged older cable or a new circuit, since there are no official records of what was installed before.

That's not to mention all the other inconsistencies about how this is supposedly about improving safety. For example, does it make any sense to say that somebody can be considered competent enough to extend a circuit by adding a few sockets (special locations excepted) and to make the connections properly and use the correct cable without LABC supervision, yet if he runs the cable back to the CU and to a new MCB, suddenly his work needs to be inspected and that'll be £100 or more for the "privilege" please? Of course not. And Mr. Bodger could still make a complete hash of adding a couple of sockets by using the wrong size cable and not making the connections properly, but that's not notifiable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So why do you bang on and on and on about part p then?

Because of this:

Reaslistically, there are so many thousands of petty laws now that I doubt any of us isn't now a criminal, even without realizing it.

It's education, pure and simple - people should know exactly what the law says so that they can make an informed decision on what they want to do.

Surely nobody should have a problem with truth and accuracy?

You seem to treat people who plan doing minor DIY without notifying as public enemy number one.

Really?

You can show that that is a reasonable assertion, can you?

This, BTW:

If you were actually asked, then lying changes not having an EIC or a Building Regulations completion notice into fraud by false representation, an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006

is about people lying to a purchaser of their property, not to LABC. If you lie to someone in order to facilitate the sale of something worth hundreds of thousands of pounds that is a serious matter.

I believe it's only 6 months for a lot of things; I know there were proposals to extend that to 2 years for certain items, although I'm not sure if anything came of that. Either way, even at 2 years it's a pretty short statute of limitations.

IIRC the extension to 2 years also changed the clock-ticking start from the date of commission of the offence to the date of it's discovery.

And isn't that what the building regulations should be restricted to as a whole?
.
.
.
Regulations about buildings should impose only those restrictions necessary to protect the rights of others.

What about the rights of other people to be able to live in the property after you have left without being in danger from things you did while you were there? Or visit it while you are there? Do new occupiers or friends visiting have a right to be protected against you killing or injuring them, possibly permanently and seriously with the latter, by doing dangerous work in your own home?

But the building regulations have no place to be dictating such things as what type of lights you install or how high you place your sockets. Those things do not in any way endanger anybody else or threaten basic rights.

That depends on whether you consider the right not to be harmed by climate change, or not to have your local environment despoiled, or the freedom to choose where you can live as basic rights or not.

 

[Paul_C]

What about the rights of other people to be able to live in the property after you have left without being in danger from things you did while you were there?

That's why people have surveys done before purchasing, assuming they don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to check such things for themselves.

Or visit it while you are there? Do new occupiers or friends visiting have a right to be protected against you killing or injuring them, possibly permanently and seriously with the latter, by doing dangerous work in your own home?

And how many dozens of ways could that happen which aren't covered by LABC inspections?

Just look at the Part P exemptions: Somebody could run a couple of extra spurs to sockets from a ring and use undersized cable, or mix up the terminals at the socket and leave L connected to E. But that work isn't notifiable. How many times do you see DIY changes which leave a broken ring? But changes to add sockets into an existing ring aren't notifiable either.

But the building regulations have no place to be dictating such things as what type of lights you install or how high you place your sockets. Those things do not in any way endanger anybody else or threaten basic rights.

That depends on whether you consider the right not to be harmed by climate change

Oh please....... Not the Al Gore school of climate doom.

or not to have your local environment despoiled

By the extra mercury from compact fluoros, for example?

or the freedom to choose where you can live as basic rights or not.

How does my choice of light fittings or socket heights in any way affect such freedom?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's why people have surveys done before purchasing, assuming they don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to check such things for themselves.

So you you think that the right balance of responsibilities is none whatsoever on the person doing work, and all of it, at great expense, on the person buying the work?

Do you take that attitude to all safety standards - i.e. that there should be absolutely no way that any purchaser of anything can be assured that it is safe and fit for purpose?

And how many dozens of ways could that happen which aren't covered by LABC inspections?

Lots.

Is that a rational reason for not having any ways covered by legislation requiring them to be safe?

Just look at the Part P exemptions: Somebody could run a couple of extra spurs to sockets from a ring and use undersized cable, or mix up the terminals at the socket and leave L connected to E. But that work isn't notifiable. How many times do you see DIY changes which leave a broken ring? But changes to add sockets into an existing ring aren't notifiable either.

We don't have police radar traps every 100m along all roads. Does that mean that we should have none, and that nobody should ever be prosecuted for speeding if they do get caught?

Oh please....... Not the Al Gore school of climate doom.

Oh please....... Not the big-socialist-government-conspiracy-of-lies school of deniers.

By the extra mercury from compact fluoros, for example?

That's one way, as is the extra mercury from power stations producing extra electricity to power inefficient forms of lighting.

But regarding mercury from CFLS, what's your position on legislation interfering with people's freedom to toss whatever they like into their own waste bins in their own houses for collection and disposal by their local authority?

How does my choice of light fittings or socket heights in any way affect such freedom?

By reducing the percentage of the housing stock which is suitable for people with restricted mobility.

And please don't make yourself look like an idiot by interpreting that as a call for all housing to be 100% suitable for people who cannot use their arms, legs, or eyes.

 

[Paul_C]

So you you think that the right balance of responsibilities is none whatsoever on the person doing work

I've never said that a person carrying out works (of any sort) should have no responsibilities.

and all of it, at great expense, on the person buying the work?

Great expense? How much is a survey compared to the cost of the whole house?

Besides, if a potential buyer is hesitant about buying without a survey for some particular aspect of the property, there's nothing to stop him negoatiating with the seller to have the latter pay for the survey. This is the same sort of issue as the controversial HIPS scheme.

There is too much government dictating going on in place of the basic freedom to come to mutually acceptable arrangements.

Do you take that attitude to all safety standards - i.e. that there should be absolutely no way that any purchaser of anything can be assured that it is safe and fit for purpose?

There is a big difference between selling something like a new appliance with the implicit term of sale that it's safe and fit for purpose and buying a second-, third-, or tenth-hand house which by its very nature is much more complex.

You can buy a car "as seen" and accept that it's your responsibility to make sure it's safe and fit for use. Why not the same with a house?

Is that a rational reason for not having any ways covered by legislation requiring them to be safe?

I'm just saying it's illogical. In no way do I support the sort of rules they have in Australia where it's illegal for an unlicensed person to do so much as change a light switch, but if this is really about making sure somebody can't do DIY wiring and leave a dangerous situation due to his errors, then logically it makes much more sense.

We don't have police radar traps every 100m along all roads. Does that mean that we should have none, and that nobody should ever be prosecuted for speeding if they do get caught?

No, but neither does it mean that every time you want to drive along a certain road you should have to notify the police, pay a fee, and have them come out and follow you to confirm that you haven't broken any laws. That would be the equivalent of what happens with LABC notification.

That's one way, as is the extra mercury from power stations producing extra electricity to power inefficient forms of lighting.

And how much energy does it take to manufacture, transport, recycle, and dispose of the "green" forms of lighting compared to the traditional incandescent filament lamp?

I also find it typically hypocritical that while the government goes on and on about saving energy, it has to be one of the biggest wasters of energy out there. For just one small example, drive past my local district council office and you'll find lights blazing from every window all night long.

But regarding mercury from CFLS, what's your position on legislation interfering with people's freedom to toss whatever they like into their own waste bins in their own houses for collection and disposal by their local authority?

If it is normal household waste, the local authority has a statutory duty to collect it. They seem to like quoting the law when it suits them, so they need to be reminded of that fact.

How does my choice of light fittings or socket heights in any way affect such freedom?

By reducing the percentage of the housing stock which is suitable for people with restricted mobility.

And what about people who for some reason find it easier for them to have the sockets or switches at heights outside the "specified" range? (I say "specified" in quotes, because of course there is no actual legislation regarding the heights beyond "reasonable provision for access & use").

And please don't make yourself look like an idiot by interpreting that as a call for all housing to be 100% suitable for people who cannot use their arms, legs, or eyes.

But that's the logical extension of your defense of these rules.

If you accept a rule about socket and switch heights supposedly in the interests of those who might not be able to reach them easily otherwise, then you would have no logical reason for objecting to mandatory ramps or elevators in 2-story houses, mandatory braille where written warnings are required, mandatory installation of induction-loop systems for the hard-of-hearing, and so on.

There are hundreds of reasons why a particular house may not be suitable for a particular person (based not just upon any physical disability), and some of the reasons which make it unsuitable for one person can be the very same reasons which make it more desirable to another.

Why do you object to people being free to choose how they build their own house to suit their own needs, so long as what they are doing does not endanger anybody else?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I've never said that a person carrying out works (of any sort) should have no responsibilities.

Do you think that the responsibilities should be formally/officially defined and enforced, with contraventions subject to sanctions? Or should we just assume/hope/trust that people will behave themselves voluntarily?

Great expense? How much is a survey compared to the cost of the whole house?

One which is guaranteed to uncover anything dangerous done by someone when the prevailing environment is an unregulated free-for-all of people allowed to do what on earth they like in their own home?

Very disruptive and very expensive.

There is too much government dictating going on in place of the basic freedom to come to mutually acceptable arrangements.

Those freedoms only work if there's a reasonably level playing field, i.e. one where you don't have to face the possibility that a lack of regulation means that the vendor has been free to do what the hell he liked.

There is a big difference between selling something like a new appliance with the implicit term of sale that it's safe and fit for purpose and buying a second-, third-, or tenth-hand house which by its very nature is much more complex.

That complexity is one of the reasons that people should not be allowed to what the hell they like.

You can buy a car "as seen" and accept that it's your responsibility to make sure it's safe and fit for use. Why not the same with a house?

1) When new the car was built to legally enforced standards.
2) Once over 3 years old the car is subject to legally enforced checks. Imperfect and far from exhaustive, but better than nothing.
3) There is much less interest on the part of owners in doing what the hell they like to cars.
4) A car is less complex to check for safety than a house.
5) It is actually an offence to sell a car which is not roadworthy.

I'm just saying it's illogical. In no way do I support the sort of rules they have in Australia where it's illegal for an unlicensed person to do so much as change a light switch, but if this is really about making sure somebody can't do DIY wiring and leave a dangerous situation due to his errors, then logically it makes much more sense.

So it's illogical.

Do you see that as meaning we should have more controls, to make it less illogical, or fewer controls to make it less illogical?

No, but neither does it mean that every time you want to drive along a certain road you should have to notify the police, pay a fee, and have them come out and follow you to confirm that you haven't broken any laws. That would be the equivalent of what happens with LABC notification.

So what are your proposals for the enforcement of Building Regulations?

And how much energy does it take to manufacture, transport, recycle, and dispose of the "green" forms of lighting compared to the traditional incandescent filament lamp?

How much energy is consumed and pollution caused by the mining and refining of tungsten ore? By the production, storage and transportation of halogen gases?

How easy is it to safely remove the mercury from dead CFLs compared to the smoke from power stations?

Paper manufacture is not a clean process, and uses a lot of water, so what about all the extra cardboard needed for lamps with lives which are orders of magnitude less than CFLs?

I also find it typically hypocritical that while the government goes on and on about saving energy, it has to be one of the biggest wasters of energy out there. For just one small example, drive past my local district council office and you'll find lights blazing from every window all night long.

And your point is what? That you don't want to be better than them?

If it is normal household waste, the local authority has a statutory duty to collect it. They seem to like quoting the law when it suits them, so they need to be reminded of that fact.

At what point does it become unrealistic to treat hazardous or toxic waste materials as "normal" household waste, even if they are generated as part of the operation of a normal household?

Which would you prefer:

1) Increased taxes to pay for the increased costs of councils sorting the waste?
2) Increased pollution, possibly serious where heavy metals are involved, if hazardous and toxic materials are treated no differently from non-toxic waste?
3) Restrictions on what you can simply toss into a general purpose waste bin?

And what about people who for some reason find it easier for them to have the sockets or switches at heights outside the "specified" range? (I say "specified" in quotes, because of course there is no actual legislation regarding the heights beyond "reasonable provision for access & use").

I do wish you would try and keep the word "reasonable" in your thoughts.

But that's the logical extension of your defense of these rules.

Oh look - you haven't.

If you accept a rule about socket and switch heights supposedly in the interests of those who might not be able to reach them easily otherwise, then you would have no logical reason for objecting to mandatory ramps or elevators in 2-story houses, mandatory braille where written warnings are required, mandatory installation of induction-loop systems for the hard-of-hearing, and so on.

I would object to those.

But then I understand what the word "reasonable" means. I can see how someone who had no concept of reasonableness would object to measures which truly were reasonable because they thought that accepting them would automatically justify and lead to measures which were idiotically unreasonable.

There are hundreds of reasons why a particular house may not be suitable for a particular person (based not just upon any physical disability), and some of the reasons which make it unsuitable for one person can be the very same reasons which make it more desirable to another.

On the whole, placing sockets and switches at the guideline heights is of benefit to far more people than it is a hindrance, it is not an inconvenience to people with no mobility problems, and it does not cost anything. It is reasonable.

Why do you object to people being free to choose how they build their own house to suit their own needs, so long as what they are doing does not endanger anybody else?

Because no man is an island.
Because we do not have an infinite capacity to provide housing.
Because nothing you do when building a house has no effect on anybody else.
Because it is reasonable to require people to adopt zero-cost practices which will be of benefit to society.

 

[holmslaw]

..