Plumbers using junction boxes under floors...

[JohnW2]

... However I wasn't in any position to argue, wanting the job to be done, and not being in a position to disagree with someone who, as mentioned before, has a qualification which I do not possess...

Not a particularly meaningful 'qualification' (at least in relation to electrical matters), then!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mwatsonxx]

has a qualification which I do not possess...

Perhaps he had an NVQ (No Viable Qualification) in alectrickery.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps he had an NVQ (No Viable Qualification) in alectrickery.

Indeed - although I always thought it meant 'Not Very Qualified'

Kind Regards, John

 

[Simon35]

Thanks for the confirmation, that's what I expected and believed. In fact I laughed, and said "that's an amusing way of getting out of it then!"
However I wasn't in any position to argue, wanting the job to be done, and not being in a position to disagree with someone who, as mentioned before, has a qualification which I do not possess...

I don't understand why you aren't in a position to disagree.
Are you the one paying for the work?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And aren't you the one who, as soon as they have issued a false EIC, can initiate legal proceedings against them for fraud, and report them for Building Regulations contravention (a criminal offence) and for trading standards offences?

 

[JohnW2]

And aren't you the one who, as soon as they have issued a false EIC, can initiate legal proceedings against them for fraud, and report them for Building Regulations contravention (a criminal offence) and for trading standards offences?

Have you ever considered the implication of the "... to the best of my knowledge and belief..." bit in the declaration of an EIC? Does that mean that an idiot who has limited or incorrect (or no!) 'knowledge' can sign that declaration 'honestly' (not fraudulently), if he/she actually believes that what they have done is compliant with BS7671.

Fraud presumably requires intent, and it seems that the plumber in question probably actually believes that what he is saying about the requirements of BS7671 is correct.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Have you ever considered that the "having exercised reasonable skill and care" is not qualified by "to the best of my knowledge and belief" and that therefore it is an absolute statement that the person has exercised reasonable skill and care, a claim which could be quickly reduced to tatters by a lawyer asking about qualifications and what grounds the declarer has for making it.

By your logic any EIC would be perfectly valid, no matter how egregious the contraventions, no matter how dangerous the work, and no matter how demonstrably ignorant the issuer was.

By extension, your argument could be used by anybody accused of any crime - all they would have to say is "Well I thought that what I did was legal". If such a person can still be convicted, on the grounds that ignorance of the law is no defence, then someone who says "to the best of my knowledge and belief" can be slapped down on the basis that their knowledge was insufficient and they were wrong in their belief.

 

[JohnW2]

Have you ever considered that the "having exercised reasonable skill and care" is not qualified by "to the best of my knowledge and belief" ....

Yes, I did consider that, but I wondered if the law might say that one can only exercise reasonable skill and care within the framework of one's "knowledge and belief". However, I'm certainly no lawyer, which is why I asked for your opinion - which you have now given.

Whatever, as I said, I find it hard to believe that someone could be charged, let alone convicted, of fraud if one had no fraudulent intent and, indeed, had honestly (but incorrectly) believed that what they had said/done was correct.

Kind Regards, John