**** Pump and MCBs!

[EFLImpudence]

Well, I don't think there is any doubt - logically or semantically - that it IS a replacement.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, I don't think there is any doubt - logically or semantically - that it IS a replacement.

Well, yes - as you say, "both logically and semantically", but ....

.... do you really believe that the intention/spirit is/was that one can, without notification, replace anything with anything (or replace multiple anythings with various anythings), provided that the work does not involve new fixed cabling or a new CU?? It's so easy to think of silly (and dangerous) examples - "replacing" an RCD with a main switch, "replacing" a B6 with a B45, "replacing" a fuse with a connector block etc. etc.

I find it very hard to believe that such was the intention, even if a dictionary would support that argument!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

... do you really believe that the intention/spirit is/was that one can,

If the authors write something which does not state their intention/spirit then the fact that I may not and I think it should be notifiable is irrelevant.

without notification, replace anything with anything (or replace multiple anythings with various anythings), provided that the work does not involve new fixed cabling or a new CU?? It's so easy to think of silly (and dangerous) examples - "replacing" an RCD with a main switch, "replacing" a B6 with a B45, "replacing" a fuse with a connector block etc. etc.

I agree but that is what they wrote.

I find it very hard to believe that such was the intention, even if a dictionary would support that argument!

What can we go by, then, if not a dictionary?

 

[securespark]

"replacing" a B6 with a B45

At least then you could have as many 1363 socket outlets as you wanted....

 

[JohnW2]

At least then you could have as many 1363 socket outlets as you wanted....

I'm not so sure about that. To avoid any chance of 'overloading the circuit', even if the cable were suitable for the OPD, would not one be limited to three single sockets or two doubles (and some might even argue about the acceptability of 'two doubles'!)??

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If the authors write something which does not state their intention/spirit then the fact that I may not and I think it should be notifiable is irrelevant. .... I agree but that is what they wrote. ... What can we go by, then, if not a dictionary?

Dictionary definitions are not the be-all-and-end all. If/when questions get into a Court, the Court can apply common sense, either their own or that of appropriate expert witnesses,.

Maybe with the support of dictionaries, you believe that the word "replace" means to replace something with anything, but think about some examples ... say you had obtained a quote for "replacing the gearbox" in your car, had accepted that quote and asked them to proceed with the work. If, when you collected the car, you found that the garage had "replaced" the gearbox with something which was not a gearbox at all, or at least, a gearbox that was not suitable for your car, should the matter find itself in Court, would you really expect that Court to find in favour of the garage, on the basis that they had complied with the dictionary definition of what you had asked them to do?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Smarty-pants...

 

[JohnW2]

Smarty-pants...

If that's a reference to my comment about the number of acceptable BS1363 sockets on a 45A circuit, I was merely trying to predict what our friend might think about the matter!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

No. In response to the gearbox analogy.

 

[JohnW2]

No. In response to the gearbox analogy.

Oh, I see! As I implied, there are millions of examples like that which one could think of. It's very common for someone to ask a company, tradesman, professional or whoever to "replace" something, without any more details than that. If one goes with EFLI's 'dictionary meaning' approach, and in the absence of more explicit instructions, they could replace it with absolutely anything (maybe something completely inappropriate) and argue that they had done what they had been asked to do. As I said, I really don't think a Court would buy that one, whatever EFLI's dictionary might say!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Dictionary definitions are not the be-all-and-end all. If/when questions get into a Court, the Court can apply common sense, either their own or that of appropriate expert witnesses,.

Will the MCB in question have been replaced by fitting another one or not?

Maybe with the support of dictionaries, you believe that the word "replace" means to replace something with anything, but think about some examples ... say you had obtained a quote for "replacing the gearbox" in your car, had accepted that quote and asked them to proceed with the work. If, when you collected the car, you found that the garage had "replaced" the gearbox with something which was not a gearbox at all, or at least, a gearbox that was not suitable for your car, should the matter find itself in Court, would you really expect that Court to find in favour of the garage, on the basis that they had complied with the dictionary definition of what you had asked them to do?

Don't be silly.

The same would apply if you said fit a new one.

You can't claim something needs common sense and then quote as an example something which has none.

 

[JohnW2]

Will the MCB in question have been replaced by fitting another one or not?

Would a BMW gearbox have been replaced by fitting a Ford one or not? Would a Court find that the mechanic had satisfactorily followed my instruction to "replace" the gearbox in my BMW if (s)he had fitted a Ford unit?

IMO, "replaced" has too many nuances of meaning to be unambiguous without definition or qualification. In some cases it can relate to substitution of an identical or very similar item - as in "please replace the battery in my watch". In other cases, it can refer to a deliberate substantial change - "I replaced my ancient scythe with a modern petrol-powered mower"

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think your examples are valid as they wouldn't fit.

The OP is going to replace an MCB with another.
He is not going to replace an MCB with a JCB by mistake.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think your examples are valid as they wouldn't fit.

That's undoubtedly true, but I'm sure that I could come up with better examples given a little time! I'm just trying to make the point that I don't think that, in the present context, it is reasonable to say that "replace" means "replace with anything".

The OP is going to replace an MCB with another.

He is, but in saying that, you are almost backing away from the dictionary definition on which your argument was based - since you now seem to be suggesting that it counts as a "replacement" because the new component is 'similar' to the original one (whereas to change the MCB to anything would satisfy your dictionary definition of "replacement").

Even if we disagree, we both know and understand what each other is saying.

This is not a debating society exercise, it relates to what answer the OP should be given to his valid and (legally) important question. Do I take it that you are confident enough about your view, based on the dictionary definition of "replace", to tell the OP that what he intends is definitely not notifiable in Wales? As I said at the very start, I personally really don't know for sure, so would not feel able to give the OP a definite answer about notifiability.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are you asking even though you agree with me?


Yes. I am confident. Are you forgetting the rest of the wording?

Edit for others reading - don't forget, in Wales, this is a list of what is NOT notifiable.