Question for electricians

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, I realise that but I was trying to make the point that, in at least this one case, it is NOT the person intending to carry out the work - if that means the one actually doing it.

If, therefore, the actual wording of the Building Regulation (as per Bas) is being disregarded, how do we know that the ADP is correct?

I haven't looked to see what the BR say about notifiable work done by someone which is then notified after the event by a registered TPC.

In Reg 12 the requirement to give a notice was already qualified by the possibility of the work being done by a self-certifier, so it would not have been beyond the wit of man, or even the wit of the DCLG, to add an exemption which allowed post-facto notification by a 3rd-party certifier.

 

[JohnW2]

In Reg 12 the requirement to give a notice was already qualified by the possibility of the work being done by a self-certifier, so it would not have been beyond the wit of man, or even the wit of the DCLG, to add an exemption which allowed post-facto notification by a 3rd-party certifier.

Maybe that additional exemption will appear 'in due course', if/when their thinking catches up with the concept of a third-party certifier?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is it not there?

Approved Documents do not amend legislation.

 

[JohnW2]

Is it not there? ... Approved Documents do not amend legislation.

I thought you were talking about Reg 12 of the legislation (that's what you wrote!), not the Approved Document - so that's what my response related to.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was. I am.

I haven't looked at the amending S.I.(s) - but surely if the AD talks about using 3rd-party certifiers then there must have been an amendment to the Building Regulations to allow that option.

 

[ericmark]

Rummer control has it the DNO was suppose to provide an isolator and at one point they started but then seems they stopped again. Two wrongs do not make a right but the HSE is quite clear about live working and how it needs to be isolated elsewhere. So following HSE rules before removing the cover from a consumer unit we should isolate and if the only method is to draw the DNO fuse then can't see how they can complain.

As yet I have not done it. I was able to disconnect my supply without breaking the seal so it was never broken.

But with correct PPE to guard against ionisation if required I would do it. I am very naughty and I have removed the cover from the consumer unit without isolating. But not in my house the RCD is not built into consumer unit so easy to isolate else where.

When taking my HGV I was told mounting pavement was a fail. But to mount pavement after first telling the examiner you wanted to do it and getting permission was not. However read highway code it is breaking the code to do so.

The point is breaking seal doing job and ringing up to say seal is broken it is unlikely the DNO will do anything. But let them find out and it's a different story.

Yes on new installations we could include an isolator but what if the isolator becomes faulty? The only way is for the DNO to provide the isolator and until they do I am sure we will break the seal when required rather than wait for them to remove and re-instate the power.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

the HSE is quite clear about live working and how it needs to be isolated elsewhere.

What do they actually say?

 

[JohnW2]

I was. I am. ... I haven't looked at the amending S.I.(s) - but surely if the AD talks about using 3rd-party certifiers then there must have been an amendment to the Building Regulations to allow that option.

One would certainly expect so - but, like you, I haven't looked at "the amending S.I(s)" (if any exist!), so can't be sure.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The point is breaking seal doing job and ringing up to say seal is broken it is unlikely the DNO will do anything. But let them find out and it's a different story.

Is that not, in practice, the 'solution' for an electrician? If an electrician contacts the DNO and tells them that (s)he has "noticed that the seals are broken" (without saying anything about when/why they were broken, or by whom), then it would seem that the electrician would be reasonably well 'covered', no matter how (and by whom) the seals had been broken?

That happened a while ago with a property that was being refurbished by a family member. The electrician called the DNO and said that he had noticed that the seals were broken. They asked him if he was able to "put some sort of seal" on for them (which he was equipped to do, and therefore did)!!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Although the third party inspection has only recently actually been introduced, wasn't it proposed at the same time as the Building Regulations relating to it?

 

[JohnW2]

Although the third party inspection has only recently actually been introduced, wasn't it proposed at the same time as the Building Regulations relating to it?

FWIW, Sections 1.28 and 1.29 of the previous (April 2006) version of Approved Doc P made it very clear that 'third party certification' was not acceptable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

...but the Building Regulations are, IMO, completely clear that it is the person carrying out the work who is responsible for complying with them, not the person ordering the work.

There clearly are some variations in the use of language. An hour or two ago, I caught a bit of a TV program which caused my ears to prick up (stupid forum software!!!) - the owner of a country house said, very clearly, that he was currently "carrying out some major refurbishment works" on the property (involving, inter alia, building and electrical work) - although there was no indication or suggestion that his hands were going to get in any way dirty!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes.
Is it not even less clear when the actual words from the Building Regulation (not guidance) are used?

"A person intending to carry out work".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

... my ears to p***k up (stupid forum software!!!) ...

Complain.

There are many valid uses of the word 'prick', it is wrong to damage our language by preventing its use.

the owner of a country house said, very clearly, that he was currently "carrying out some major refurbishment works" on the property (involving, inter alia, building and electrical work) - although there was no indication or suggestion that his hands were going to get in any way dirty!

But as we know people are often imprecise in ways which are unacceptable in the wording of laws.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"A person intending to carry out work".

That would be the electrician when he knows he's going to be doing some work.

Or the plumber ditto.

Or the window installer ditto.

Etc.