Second Consumer Unit / Garden power advice needed

[JohnW2]

Of course not, but it was BAS who chose to separate consideration of design and construction declarations. I thought it was clear that I was talking about the situation in which the electrician had fully considered, and was completely happy with, the design.

Ah, well, of course that is acceptable but then it is not signing for someone else's design at all so the premise does not arise. ... That is what I was puzzled about regarding when it could happen.

Exactly, but unless I've completely misunderstanding him, BAS seems to be suggesting that it would be "a lie" for an electrician to sign the design declaration if (s)he did not consider (and fully 'approve') the design until after someone else had already undertaken the 'design' - which, IMO, is a plain daft suggestion.

I would say that in a domestic situation it is going to be standard circuits but something out of the ordinary such as a detached distant garage supply it would literally be a waste of time the householder doing it as it would all have to be checked again.

Well, that may be true (it obviously depends upon 'the householder' - if it were me, for example, I would hope that I would get most things right!). However, that's not the point being discussed - even if the electrician does "check it all again", and if they are thereby satisfied with the design, BAS seems to think that it would be "a lie" for them to sign the design declaration - see above!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If I sit down and carefully consider a circuit, do all the necessary calculations, and end up concluding that it is electrically satisfactory and in compliance with regulations, are you seriously suggesting that for me to sign the design declaration would become "a lie" if someone else had previously thought about the design of the circuit? Is it really your view that only the first person to undertake the thinking and calculation etc. can describe themself as 'the designer'?

No.

But if the person signing a certificate was not responsible for the design/construction of the circuit, and had not carried it out himself, then signing the declaration on the certificate would be a lie.

Ditto Building Regulations certification. Although given the way that the OP is not answering the questions about whether he applied, and if so what he said, that issue seems to be one which he is ignoring.

I spend much of my life putting my name and signature to reports and other formal documents which are declared as being my considered views,opinions and judgements about the matter in question. However, those documents often follow long periods of discussion, with input from many people, and often many drafts which others influence. I obviously make my own assessments of those other inputs before I end up formulating my own position - but that will often be to agree with some of what others have said. By your reasoning, I would be "lying" when I declared these things to be my view and assessment, since someone else had "thought of it first"!

That really is not the same thing at all.

What you're describing is more akin to the situation of a chief engineer on a large project being the focal point of responsibility for the work of a number of designers each working on a particular task. Not an electrician being asked to connect up and sign off a circuit designed and constructed by a DIYer.

 

[JohnW2]

If I sit down and carefully consider a circuit, do all the necessary calculations, and end up concluding that it is electrically satisfactory and in compliance with regulations, are you seriously suggesting that for me to sign the design declaration would become "a lie" if someone else had previously thought about the design of the circuit? Is it really your view that only the first person to undertake the thinking and calculation etc. can describe themself as 'the designer'?

No. ... But if the person signing a certificate was not responsible for the design/construction of the circuit, and had not carried it out himself, then signing the declaration on the certificate would be a lie.

I do not really understand your "No". As surely must be clear from what I've written, I am talking about a situation in which an electrician undertakes all the necessary thought and calculation to satisfy him/herself that the design is satisfactory and compliant with regs. Are you saying that it would be a "lie" for him/her to sign the design declaration (as 'designer') just because someone else had previously 'designed' the circuit? (remember that we are only discussing the design declaration - as I said, the construction one could be more of a problem).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I do not really understand your "No". As surely must be clear from what I've written, I am talking about a situation in which an electrician undertakes all the necessary thought and calculation to satisfy him/herself that the design is satisfactory and compliant with regs.

That's verification, and the EIC does not carry a declaration for someone to say that he verified the design.

Are you saying that it would be a "lie" for him/her to sign the design declaration (as 'designer') just because someone else had previously 'designed' the circuit?

Of course it would - how can someone claim to have designed something which has already been built by someone else according to their design?

He can legitimately say "I have checked the original design and am satisfied that it is good". He can say "If I had done the design I would have arrived at the end result".

He cannot say "I designed that circuit".

I being the person responsible for the design of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008, amended to 2011 except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows:

Was he responsible for the design? No he was not. The fact that if he had been the design would have been identical is irrelevant - he was not responsible for the design of that specific piece of work.

So it would be untrue for him to say that he had been, and he would know it to be untrue.

And, in the case of giving an installation an EIC, or a set of 3 EICs, and certification of Building Regulations compliance, it would be done in order to deceive people into thinking that he had been responsible for it.

As far as I'm concerned an untruth knowingly told in order to deceive ticks all the boxes for being a lie.

 

[JohnW2]

I do not really understand your "No". As surely must be clear from what I've written, I am talking about a situation in which an electrician undertakes all the necessary thought and calculation to satisfy him/herself that the design is satisfactory and compliant with regs.

That's verification, and the EIC does not carry a declaration for someone to say that he verified the design.

Are you saying that it would be a "lie" for him/her to sign the design declaration (as 'designer') just because someone else had previously 'designed' the circuit?

Of course it would - how can someone claim to have designed something which has already been built by someone else according to their design?

Thanks for confirming that I have been understanding you correctly. Although what you're saying is strictly correct, I remain of the view that it is an "obsessively pedantic" view (a view which, of course you are free to hold). Maybe the wording of the declaration should be tweaked to accommodate the views of the likes of you - to simply indicate that the signatory was confirming that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the design of the work was compliant with BS7671 - since that, and only that, is surely what matters to anyone reading the declaration. Also, since we're seeming being pedantic....

Was he responsible for the design? No he was not.

Since when did "being responsible for" necessarily mean "having undertaken"? As previously mentioned, I am "responsible for" (and sign for, to accept that responsibility) plenty of things that have been done,or 'thought up', by others and which I merely having, in your language, "verified". See dictionary definitions of "responsible for".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Although what you're saying is strictly correct, I remain of the view that it is an "obsessively pedantic" view (a view which, of course you are free to hold).

It has never been my experience that a judgement of "excessive pedantry" is one which is even slightly tinged with admiration or a recognition of a position to be striven for. It is, in my experience, one which attempts to dismiss the position as being unnecessary, and not one which should reasonably be held.

So we are back to what I said - you are a person who does not have a high regard for honesty and truthfulness.

Maybe the wording of the declaration should be tweaked to accommodate the views of the likes of you - to simply indicate that the signatory was confirming that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the design of the work was compliant with BS7671 - since that, and only that, is surely what matters to anyone reading the declaration.

What matters, or should matter, to anybody who does care for honesty and truthfulness, and who is not a person to whom lies and deceit come so naturally that they see them as perfectly normal and acceptable, is that the person signing the declaration should be telling the truth.

Until the wording is tweaked as you suggest, anybody who declares that he was responsible for work done without his prior involvement, without any supervision or direction by him, and who says that he carried it out, is lying.

Also, since we're seeming being pedantic.

Taking what words actually say instead of pretending that they mean something else because you would rather they did is not pedantry.

Since when did "being responsible for" necessarily mean "having undertaken"?

Since there was never any supervisory, managerial or directional relationship between the person accepting responsibility for the work of another.

As previously mentioned, I am "responsible for" (and sign for, to accept that responsibility) plenty of things that have been done,or 'thought up', by others and which I merely having, in your language, "verified". See dictionary definitions of "responsible for".

I know what "responsible for" means. One thing it does not mean is coming along after the completion of work done by somebody you had never even heard of, and which had been done entirely without your knowledge, let alone approval, and saying "I am the person responsible for that work being done".

It seems I also have to point out to you that the declaration also says that the person signing carried out the work.

 

[JohnW2]

BAS, it may be a source of continuing concern to you, but I really don't believe that any sensible person who has an interest in looking at the declarations on an EIC would have any problem with someone having signed the design declaration if 'all they had done' was to examine someone else's design and "verify" that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the design was compliant with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Where you write "sensible" I would write "dishonest, untrustworthy, lying, cheating and deceitful".

For that is what they would have to be to have no problem with being lied to.

It doesn't matter how you try to dress it up, and rationalise that the end result is the same, the fact remains that someone signing the EIC under those circumstances would be lying.