re-wire imminent - some questions, any help appreciated

[ban-all-sheds]

It doesn't work like that. You can be competent, not screw up, but still take the blame if something goes wrong.

But that wasn't what you said - you were talking about getting it wrong:

The reality is that you can make a risk assessment, there is no official way to have someone in authority pass comment on it, and the only way to know if you got it right or cocked up is when stood in court if something happens and you're charged with getting it wrong.

and that was what I replied to.

Knowing what the manager of the building we rent space in at work gets told, some of these consultants come up with complete drivel - just like a recent thread here recently about 3 double sockets on a 3P supply ? Seriously, you would not believe some of the drivel - the manager is afraid to wedge an OUTSIDE door open when he's due a visit for fear of a black mark for leaving a fire door open ! WTF !

If it turns out that there is no basis for that advice, or, more importantly, critical marks in an assessment, then as I observed with the sockets situation, the answer is not to just say "you wouldn't believe the drivel these people spout", the answer is to go after them for compensation, to report them to any professional body they use, and drive the incompetent thieving b*****ds into the ground.

And then she used to have some nice foliage above the main door - there's a sort of small mezzanine floor in the corner above the revolving door. She had to take it all down, because she was told it's illegal because it needs ladders to access. She wasn't told that precautions and safe working practices were needed and given that option, just told that "it's illegal" ("Elf n Safety" strikes again).

That would seem to be untrue, therefore charging someone for telling them that is wrong. Why is it that we are quite comfortable with taking action against people who do something physical wrong because they are incompetent and ignorant, but when they write a report which is likewise wrong, which therefore is not worth what was charged for it, and which can lead to expenses, losses, inconvenience etc for the recipient, we just shrug our shoulders?

He needs to be driven into the ground, and that's all there is to it.

 

[SimonH2]

But that wasn't what you said - you were talking about getting it wrong:

And getting it wrong is ?
You do everything right, but <something> happens and you're accused of doing it wrong. No cock up needed, and you have to stand up in court and justify why you weren't wrong - meanwhile <someone> is working on the assumption that "someone must be to blame" so they can get compensation. Anything that doesn't have absolute "back and white" rules to cover your situation is subject to judgement - and so at some point it could be that your judgement is questioned, and without having got it wrong you could be found to be in the wrong (someone thinks you cocked up).

If it turns out that there is no basis for that advice, or, more importantly, critical marks in an assessment, then as I observed with the sockets situation, the answer is not to just say "you wouldn't believe the drivel these people spout", the answer is to go after them for compensation, to report them to any professional body they use, and drive the incompetent thieving b*****ds into the ground.

...
That would seem to be untrue, therefore charging someone for telling them that is wrong. Why is it that we are quite comfortable with taking action against people who do something physical wrong because they are incompetent and ignorant, but when they write a report which is likewise wrong, which therefore is not worth what was charged for it, and which can lead to expenses, losses, inconvenience etc for the recipient, we just shrug our shoulders.

Because, in situations like this, the people commissioning the work don't know that they're being lied to. I have made comments suggesting that the advice is possibly suspect (I think male bovine manure may have come into the conversation) - but my opinion carries little weight. I also don't know exactly what she's been told, only what she's come away with as "facts".

Given the way some tenants behave, I can understand her paranoia. She's not technical, neither is her boss, so they have to rely on what the qualified people tell them - in large part, for the reasons given earlier, as a**e covering activities. What it comes down to is : the expert told them they need to do <something>, so to cover their backsides they do <something>.

And don't get me started on fire alarms and door holdbacks (or lack thereof) ...