nickyross said:
Well although you meant that to be sarcastic, you are indeed a silly billy. You made assumptions and jumped to conclusions, all in pursuit of telling that me that you thought I'd broken the law.
If I made any assumption it was that you were telling the truth. I didn't "jump" to any conclusion - I simply took you at your word when you said "
I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters".
I didn't realise at the time that what you say cannot be trusted.
I haven't, but even if I did, the topic was never intended to invite your view on the matter, or on a point of law.
This is an open discussion forum - anything you post here is an invitation for anyone in the world to comment. If you don't like that, then don't come here and post. Note that I said nothing until, based on the position that you had been truthful, it appeared that you had installed fixed electrical equipment in premises that were to be let to tenants. As you are not qualified to do that, my "point of law" is that you could well have invalidated the landlord's insurance.
the temporary connection was not via the new wiring (to the connection units) but via a plug top to an existing switched outlet - not a change to the installation.
Do you really not see how "
I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters" appeared?
ban-all-sheds said:
Shame that you wrote what you did....
Not so. I stand by what I wrote.
You said you had installed these heaters.
This was not true.
Why do you want to stand by a statement that was not true? How can you stand by a statement which you later indicated, more than once, was not true?
The shame is that you obsessed about the letter of the law, and my posting, without understanding the spirit of it.
I am not obsessed with the letter of the law, which was why I said what I did about what my attitude would have been had you done what you had claimed in your own home. Which is why, if you look at any of the posts I've made in this forum, and elsewhere, I have consistently said that it is of no concern to me if people break the law, but that I do firmly believe that people should be fully aware of what the law says and that any decision to break it should be an informed one.
It wasn't until what you claimed to have done created the risk of insurance problems that I tried to point out to you that what you'd claimed to have done was unlawful.
ban-all-sheds said:
Therefore you are not legally considered competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.
This statement is a non-sequitor.
No - it is exactly what the law means. I didn't notice at the time (apologies - it was late), but you pasted a quote from "section 0.8" of the Building Regulations. Neither Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531 The Building Regulations 2000 nor Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3210
The Building (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2004 contain a section 0.8 or the words you quoted.
I'm not sure that your "understanding" of the law counts for much when you're not reading, or at least not quoting from, the law.
The law requires that the installer be a competent person who is registered. It does not follow that in not being registered I am not competent.
It follows that you are not considered competent in law to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations, which is what I said.
The point is that a registered person must be qualified in certain respects, and that those qualifications are considered proof of competence. It does not follow that absence of those qualifications is proof of incompetence, nor does the law intend to imply such a conclusion.
You have completely failed to understand the difference between being competent in its everyday meaning, and being considered in law to be competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations. You could be the most competent electrician in the world, but if you are not registered with one of the self-certification schemes the law does not regard you as competent to self-certify compliance with the Building Regulations.
ban-all-sheds said:
At no point have I said, or implied, that anything you have done is unsafe. At no point have I said, or implied that you should not have installed these heaters* because of safety concerns.
Irrelevant - what you said is in bold, above.
Irrelevant? It is absolutely relevant. You are claiming that because I raised concerns about the legality of what you claimed to have done in a building which was to be let to tenants, but that I would not have bothered to raise them if you'd done this work in your own home means that I'm not interested in safety.
I'm beginning to wonder if you are entirely rational.
ban-all-sheds said:
My point all along has been that there are laws governing what you did*, and you contravened them.
Nope - you're wrong. But you're entitled to be.
I am wrong insofar as you did not in any meaningful way contravene any laws. But we keep coming back to your opening statement: "
I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters".
If that had been true then you would have contravened the law.
ban-all-sheds said:
How you think that equates to me saying I'm not interested in safety beggars belief.
You said that you would not have objected if the work was on my own house. Your [mistaken] interpretation of what I was doing has a safety implication that is no less severe, merely less illegal, when carried out on my own house. This is why I said you had no interest in safety, merely in riveting your flag to the letter of the law.
More irrationality. I can see little value in discussing this point any further unless you can show me where, in anything I have written here, I said that you should not have done what you had claimed because of safety implications, or that I would not have been concerned about safety if you'd done it in your own home.
Your inability to read beyond those letters is what betrays your inability to interpret the law - this is a job for the justice system. Even jurors, who ARE invited, do not interpret the law.
I'm being very careful to base everything I say on what is written in the law. You're the one taking statements from Approved Document P (not the law) and interpreting it in a way that shows you don't understand what is meant by the term "competent person" in this context.
ban-all-sheds said:
*Except, of course, that contrary to your original statement it seems that you didn't install them..
Except, of course, that to my original statement is still correct.
So now you are saying that you did install them?
First you said you did, then you said you didn't, now you are saying that you did.
Which is it?
When I pointed out to you the relevance of the law to the installation of fixed electrical equipment you quickly clarified that you had not installed them because "
The heaters do not become "on the consumer's side of the electricity supply" until they become connected to that supply - except for a temporary connection, for testing purposes, this has not been done by me and will not be done by me"
Was that not true?
ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
May I ask what qualifies you as competent enough to interpret the law
The ability to read.
If you had the ability then you would have actually read it mate.
I have read it. And understood it.
Nope - you misunderstood it.
ban-all-sheds said:
ban-all-sheds said:
AND to act as a policeman,
¿Que?
What's the purpose of you posting on this topic? To tell me the law? And what now, since it turns out that I know it better than you?
What basis is there for that claim?
I refer you to all of the above.
And I likewise refer you. You don't know what the significance is of registration with a self-certification scheme. You don't even know the difference between the law and the Approved Document.
I didn't ask you to tell me, nor did anyone else appoint you to tell me
This is an open discussion forum - anything you post here is an invitation for anyone in the world to comment. If you don't like that, then don't come here and post.
In this case, your thinking, which is not based on any law, is muddled. I'm not trying to "get round" anything, 'cos there's nothing that needs getting round.
Well - you do seem to keep changing your mind about whether you installed these heaters or not, but if we go with the likeliest situation, which was that you did not "install" them in an "electrical installation" sense, then you're right, there is nothing that needs getting round.
But when I first raised the issue, I could only go on the basis of "
I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters" as at the time I had no reason to think that what you had written was untrue.
My advice regarding the owner checking his insurance policy was based on the distinct possibility that it contains clauses which say something like "all electrical installation work shall be carried out by a qualified electrician", or "all electrical installation work shall be carried out by a contractor registered with NICEIC", or "all building work done shall conform to the relevant Building Regulations".
You were the one who thought that if his insurance did say that then you advising him to check somehow made it alright.
ban-all-sheds said:
Except, of course, that contrary to your original statement it seems that you didn't carry out such work.
I carried out the work that I said - it was all abundantly clear to everyone before you stuck your oar in.
You said that you'd installed the heaters. Installing them, as you later clarified, means permanently connecting them to the supply. I think this is reasonable - if someone employed an electrician to install some storage heaters, and all he did was screw them to the wall, and did not connect them to the supply, I don't think they would regard them as "installed".
nickyross said:
The heaters do not become "on the consumer's side of the electricity supply" until they become connected to that supply - except for a temporary connection, for testing purposes, this has not been done by me and will not be done by me.
nickyross said:
I've installed some Dimplex 2.5 Kw slimline storage heaters
As you pointed out, you haven't.
Well that's your unqualified opinion, based on a load of unsubstantiated assumptions, leading you to a conclusion from which you're refusing to back down.
My assumptions were perfectly valid, given the information that you had provided.
This is also your opinion, and isn't of any relevance.
You keep attacking me for everything that I said on the basis of your claim to have installed these heaters.
I accept that you did not install them, but that does not alter the fact that I wrote what I did because of what you said you had done.
ban-all-sheds said:
That they turned out to be invalid because of a misleading statement that you made is not my fault.
Not so - you assumed that LABC was not informed, based on no information. You still don't know whether or not you were right,
Oh yes I do.
but it doesn't matter because you made an invalid (i.e. groundless) assumption.
An assumption may well be groundless, but that does not mean that the conclusion is incorrect.
