Ring Circuit on old fuse board

[Pensdown]

It is my opinion (sorry for having one) that electrical installations in rented property should be subject to a 'stricter' PIR than private households. Three reasons (all similar) - first to safeguard the tenants, second to safeguard the landlord (the client) and third to safeguard the inspector.

I thought all PIR's were to 7671?



Or when you say "Stricter" do you mean something like this?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can. An 'Unsatisfactory' on a PIR

PIR codes:
1 requires urgent attention
2 requires improvement
3 requires further investigation
4 does not comply with BS 7671: 2008 amended to ………

Remember I said "forced" to remove it. Are there any sound engineering reasons that you can point to which would justify the landlord being forced to remove it?

Do you really think that people should be forced to comply with your personal opinions?

But then BAS, you admit you don't and have never done Inspection and Testing and electrical installation work for a living, so what would you know?

I know more than nothing. Which was why I said I didn't know of any way that the landlord could be forced to remove the socket.

But I don't know everything, which is why I'd be interested to learn more, and find out if there is a way to force him to remove it, but I fear that you are not going to be the one who provides a satisfactory answer.

It's easy to pontificate when it's not your liability and indemnity insurance at stake. So that leaves us with your conscience and clearly you don't have one.

Because of the attitude displayed here - that comment was totally uncalled for.

 

[FingRinal]

As I said - 'Unsatisfactory' will suffice.

As for your desire to enter the realms of fantasy, dream up any scenario you like if it makes you happy. Bang on about Statutory, non-Statutory, BS this BS that. Cut and shut whichever fragments of arguments, posts, threads, articles, pinches from other forums etc. that you like.

I'm just not going to get into it with someone like you who has never had to put his signature to anything more serious than his library card.

Periodic Inspection Reports, BAS, are NOT black and white, monkey see monkey do reports. This causes much gnashing of teeth amongst some who would like a Noddy guide tick sheet to aid their compilation of PIRs.

Your attempts to narrow the definition of Observation Codes in order to spark confrontation is rather meangingless and a waste of time.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We also don't know if there any exposed conductive parts as it wasn't mentioned, or whether the earthing and bonding complies with 'any' edition of the Regs...etc... etc... etc..

You are 100% correct.

But the "we" includes you, and there's no value in speculating about those things, none of which were mentioned in the original post about there being 1 ring and a socket on the lighting circuit.

You might validly argue that what you know of the installation indicates that a PIR is strongly advised, but the fact that you do not know about the earthing and bonding etc should not have any bearing on your answer to the OP's question about the safety of what he described and whether the landlord can be forced to rectify it.

 

[FingRinal]

BAS, as the author of some of the legal info on this site (the now infamous mumbo jumbo) perhaps you can comment on whether or not the landlord has a LEGAL responsibility to ensure the electrical installation in his rented property is SAFE for his tenants.

If you answer in the affirmative, please provide a comment on ALL the options open to the landlord to PROVE that he has complied with his legal responsibilities.

I accept that the landlord might be lucky enough to have to never prove such a thing. But let's say that, unlike you, he has a conscience and would like to be able do so.

If you answer in the negative, please provide a legal refernce for us all to look at.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said - 'Unsatisfactory' will suffice.

I wasn't arguing with your personal opinion that it's unsatisfactory, just wondering why you think that because you don't like it the landlord can be forced to remove it.

As for your desire to enter the realms of fantasy, dream up any scenario you like if it makes you happy. Bang on about Statutory, non-Statutory, BS this BS that. Cut and shut whichever fragments of arguments, posts, threads, articles, pinches from other forums etc. that you like.

I've got no desire to enter any realms of fantasy. Quite the opposite in fact - I'm trying to establish the reality concerning the landlord being forced to remove the socket.

I'm just not going to get into it with someone like you who has never had to put his signature to anything more serious than his library card.

So are you refusing to provide a helpful answer to a civil question?

Your attempts to narrow the definition of Observation Codes in order to spark confrontation is rather meangingless and a waste of time.

I'm not trying to narrow them. I can't help noting that "unsatisfactory" is not one of the codes that you can put against the observation of that socket, but I am wondering if you can really justify an overall assessment of the entire installation of "unsatisfactory" if that's all that is wrong with it.

Nor am I trying to spark confrontation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, as the author of some of the legal info on this site (the now infamous mumbo jumbo)

I've not written any mumbo jumbo. If others have, and you are aware of it then I'm sure you would follow the dictates of your conscience and professionalism and correct it, wouldn't you?

perhaps you can comment on whether or not the landlord has a LEGAL responsibility to ensure the electrical installation in his rented property is SAFE for his tenants.

I'm sure he does. I don't know which Act or Regulation imposes that responsibility, but I'd be amazed if there wasn't one.

If you answer in the affirmative, please provide a comment on ALL the options open to the landlord to PROVE that he has complied with his legal responsibilities.

Not knowing what they are, I can't comment on all of them, but I imagine they would include regular PIRs.

I accept that the landlord might be lucky enough to have to never prove such a thing. But let's say that, unlike you, he has a conscience and would like to be able do so.

Are you ever going to take part in a discussion without slinging personal insults around?

Are you doing this because you want to see the topic locked so that you don't have to answer anything?

 

[FingRinal]

OK BAS, to put this one to bed.

No one, other than the Inspector(s) of the installation can provide a definite answer to your questions.

Without actually being there...blah...blah...

Will that do?

(regarding the socket though - I wonder if it's a socket final circuit with a spurred lighting circuit or a lighting circuit with a spurred socket circuit, or neither, or both, or none - BAS to delete as appropriate).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK BAS, to put this one to bed.

No one, other than the Inspector(s) of the installation can provide a definite answer to your questions.

Without actually being there...blah...blah...

Will that do?

OK.

(regarding the socket though - I wonder if it's a socket final circuit with a spurred lighting circuit or a lighting circuit with a spurred socket circuit, or neither, or both, or none - BAS to delete as appropriate).

Interesting question.

Most reasonable is the second one.

But if the label on the CU were changed to read "lights and under-stairs socket"....?

 

[FingRinal]

It is my opinion (sorry for having one) that electrical installations in rented property should be subject to a 'stricter' PIR than private households. Three reasons (all similar) - first to safeguard the tenants, second to safeguard the landlord (the client) and third to safeguard the inspector.

I thought all PIR's were to 7671?

I placed 'stricter' in inverted commas for a reason. This can be justified by use of the 'Extent and Limitations'.

 

[FingRinal]

But if the label on the CU were changed to read "lights and under-stairs socket"....?

What if it were changed to 'Narnia'?

(EDIT:

even better - what if it were changed to 'Lights/Shower'????

http://www.screwfix.com/talk/thread.jspa?threadID=80375&tstart=0

 

[Pensdown]

I placed 'stricter' in inverted commas for a reason. This can be justified by use of the 'Extent and Limitations'.

I would have thought the initial inspection should justify the extent and limitation of the PIR, not the type of property?

Ok, for a large commercial property the extent and limitations have to be agreed for costing but even then they should based on a pre-quotation survey by the inspector and not the type of property.

 

[333rocky333]

(regarding the socket though - I wonder if it's a socket final circuit with a spurred lighting circuit or a lighting circuit with a spurred socket circuit, or neither, or both, or none

We will proberly never know
If steve returns he will look at this lot and proberly give up

 

[securespark]

If you've nothing to end - let it go.

As long as you have the grace to accept that you made an unecessarily snappy reply to my humerous remark, because you thought I was being serious.

 

[FingRinal]

It's not so much the 'type' of property, it's more the type of 'use' of the installation that can make a difference.