Indeed - and it would also be nice if we were made aware of their understanding of 'a circuit', tooSchedule 4 (list of work where NO notice has to be given) has had the electrical references omitted and
replaced with THIS which is a list of work which has to be notified. ... Let us hope the writers know the actual definition of a circuit.
Well - basically my failure to think properly.Hmmm- interesting. Although we are aware of apparent inconsistencies of detail between App Doc P and the legislation, that degree of inconsistency would make no sense - so I think we must be missing something. Maybe there's no need for a change in the legisltaion - perhaps merely a slight change of wording in the self-certification paperwork (which does not exist in the SI)?
No I'm not.Maybe you don't, but since you clearly do know exactly what I meant, it is you who is really playing a game.
Of course I do - there were never any such reasons for any of the extensions of the Building Regulations to cover electrical work, the whole thing was always entirely based on the economic interests of electricians and their trade associations.If you're capable of being sensible for a moment, do you agree with me that there probably never was an electrical/safety-evidence-based reason for making work which would not be notifiable elsewhere notifiable because it was in a kitchen?
Could be different people, or the same - you'll be able to buy another hat from your scheme organiser.Are these inspectors expected to be different people than those (me) who are allowed to do the work themselves and self-certify and therefore supervise a labourer who is doing the 'donkey work'?
No.In other words, will these inspectors include staff of the LA but who now will have to be approved?
I expect they'll throw in another hat for free.you'll be able to buy another hat from your scheme organiser.
That all makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.Well - basically my failure to think properly. ... Using a 3rd-party inspector has always been possible (see Building Regulation #19) - I guess that until now there were no bodies who the Secretary of State designated as able to approve 3rd-party inspectors for electrical work. ... So the law was always in place, and it is right and proper that the Approved Document should be amended to guide people in the use of this newly possible alternative to LABC notification.
I wouldn't have expected any less from you! However, you will then be in the position of talking about what they are 'well advised' to do, which is somewhat weaker than in the present situation. More to the point, with appreciably less work notifiable, there will presumably be fewer occasions on which you will need to ask people about matters relating only to notifiable work.And sadly for you John, the question you hate me asking won't go away, just get reworded, and people who intend to appoint a 3rd-party inspector would be well advised to do that and find out what their policies and procedures are before getting other people to do design work etc.
Hmmm - although I accept that as a view which you're totally entitled to hold, it doesn't really help me with the question I was asking. Whatever the underlying motivations, it is surely apparent that, in deciding what works should be notifiable, they selected what they felt to be 'higher risk' works/situations. My suggestion was that there probably never was much of a specific evidence-based reason to think that kitchen work fell into that category (certainly not kitchen ceiling lights!). ... but you knew that's what I meant, anyway.Of course I do - there were never any such reasons for any of the extensions of the Building Regulations to cover electrical work, the whole thing was always entirely based on the economic interests of electricians and their trade associations.If you're capable of being sensible for a moment, do you agree with me that there probably never was an electrical/safety-evidence-based reason for making work which would not be notifiable elsewhere notifiable because it was in a kitchen?
No, they decided what should be notifiable on the basis of economics - where was work being lost to other tradesmen? Bathrooms, kitchens, gardens..Whatever the underlying motivations, it is surely apparent that, in deciding what works should be notifiable, they selected what they felt to be 'higher risk' works/situations.
OK - I give up. Your views are incompatible with the issue I was attempting to discuss.No, they decided what should be notifiable on the basis of economics - where was work being lost to other tradesmen? Bathrooms, kitchens, gardens.. All the places people tend to have makeovers done.Whatever the underlying motivations, it is surely apparent that, in deciding what works should be notifiable, they selected what they felt to be 'higher risk' works/situations.
Perhaps as well as that, if so, it was a way to get these other trades to 'train' and register - and pay.No, they decided what should be notifiable on the basis of economics - where was work being lost to other tradesmen? Bathrooms, kitchens, gardens.Whatever the underlying motivations, it is surely apparent that, in deciding what works should be notifiable, they selected what they felt to be 'higher risk' works/situations.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local