TRV vs Room stat

[davebgas]

Oh no!!!!!!!!! More....... quick Goldberg, you better ring HMSO and tell them all their documents are wrong and clearly labelled as Building Regulations at the top... even though Approved documents have nothing to do with the building regs......

View media item 15951 View media item 15952

 

[davebgas]

View media item 15953

 

[Goldberg]

read the title of the document.

Do you find it convincing because of the title and the coat of arms? If so, you'll be impressed by this:

View media item 15954

please explain to me how this has nothing to do with the building regs despite its name appearing on the document.

I can't explain something that I never asserted. You're just making things up you go along.

you can come up with whatever contrived nonsense you want

Please feel free to show how any single thing I've written on this topic is contrived from anything but the bare facts.

the fact remains this document is clearly titled as the building regulations at the top.

The title alone doesn't make it a legal document. Inside, it says:

This document is one of a series that has been
approved and issued by the Secretary of State
for the purpose of providing practical guidance
with respect to the technical requirements of the
Building Regulations 2000 for England and Wales.

Guidance. Nothing mandatory. Just guidance.

If the ADL has nothing to do with the building regs, why does it carry the name?

I've never pretended to know. I suggest you ask that question of the government department that published it.

'System' was a turn of phrase and I am not going to start discussing semantics with you.

Fine by me. Stick to terms that actually exist - that makes things much easier.

 

[davebgas]

You should be a politician

Please answer your statement

There are The Building Regulations, and there are Approved Documents. The latter are not, in any way, part of The Building Regulations,

Why do they have no part of the building regs?

I've never pretended to know. I suggest you ask that question of the government department that published it.

But you obviously did pretend you know hence your statement that they are not in any way part of the building regs

please explain to me how this has nothing to do with the building regs despite its name appearing on the document.

I can't explain something that I never asserted. You're just making things up you go along.

But you HAVE asserted this...... again your EXACT quote was

There are The Building Regulations, and there are Approved Documents. The latter are not, in any way, part of The Building Regulations

So again, please explain why they have no part of the building regs despite carrying its name? I have no need to ask the government department in question as I am not the one making incorrect statements.

 

[Goldberg]

Please answer your statement

There are The Building Regulations, and there are Approved Documents. The latter are not, in any way, part of The Building Regulations,

Why do they have no part of the building regs?

I don't know why you find it so difficult to write things accurately.

I didn't say that "they have no part of The Building Regulations.". Frankly I'm not even sure what that sentence of yours might mean.

What I wrote was that they are not, in any way, part of.....".

This means the following:

1. There is only one document called "The Building Regulations". It has amendments, but no annexes. It is the law. It's the law because it's been officially made by the relevant Secretary of State under the powers conferred by The Building Act, which, in turn, was passed by Parliament.

2. No Approved Document is a part of the document called "The Building Regulations". The Approved Documents are not the law. They are not the law because they have not been made by the Secretary of State and have not been passed by Parliament.

3. The Building Regulations do not refer to any Approved Document.

I've never pretended to know. I suggest you ask that question of the government department that published it.

But you obviously did pretend you know hence your statement that they are not in any way part of the building regs

Please see above. You might see this as a point of semantics, but the words I actually wrote have a completely different meaning to the words that you incorrectly quote me as writing.

I've never pretended to know why the Approved Documents have the title that they do, or why they're the colour that they are. The most important thing to know about them is that nothing they say is mandatory just because of being in an Approved Document. Only those things in The Building Regulations are mandatory (or, where applicable, prohibited).

please explain to me how this has nothing to do with the building regs despite its name appearing on the document.

I can't explain something that I never asserted. You're just making things up you go along.

But you HAVE asserted this...... again your EXACT quote was

There are The Building Regulations, and there are Approved Documents. The latter are not, in any way, part of The Building Regulations

Correct. I wrote "are not....part of", not "have no part of". Nor did I write "has nothing to do with the building regs". These are words you're just making up.

So again, please explain why they have no part of the building regs despite carrying its name?

Again, I can't, because I didn't write the words "have no part of".

I have no need to ask the government department in question as I am not the one making incorrect statements.

You asked me to explain why someone else published something with a particular title. If you don't want to ask the department that published it, then I don't know how you're going to find out the answer to your question. I don't know the answer, and I've never said that I know the answer, and I've never pretended that I know the answer.

But me not knowing the reason for something that's entirely irrelevant doesn't mean that there's a law that makes it mandatory to fit a room thermostat.

If there is such a law, I don't understand why you've failed to provide any reference to it.

 

[davebgas]

Wriggle wriggle.......
Face you.... semantics or not, I think the word you are looking for is 'inference'

Its used in law, and I'm sure any solictor worth his salt will clearly state that you infered, the AD's were in no way associated with the building regs.

Now frankly, I'm tired of you back tracking and shallow grasp on what is and what is not required of you.

I would dearly love to know what qualifications you have, but then again, its easy to google ACS qualifications...

You proclaim to be a gas engineer.... this I wholey refute to be true...as not once on this forum have I seen you gleen any helpful fault finding information to anyone..

You jump into posts without the faintest idea what you are talking about and instead to choose to post useless ramblings... case and point is your page counting on another thread.
You do not have the ability to assist in the fault finding as you are not capable of internet searching it.

At the end of the day, this whole argument is meaningless and I've had enough of arguing with someone who quite frankly is not even able to do anything apart from book worm skills.

You are not an engineer, and if you call yourself one, then it would be interesting to know what your EcUK registration number is to prove this.
Any old clown can call themselves an 'engineer' in this country, but a true engineer will be registered with the EcUK
You I know, will not be....

And now, because I'm fed of you, say we agree to differ. End of story.

 

[doitall]

View media item 15953

Why not quit while you're ahead Goldborg, like 500 posts ago

 

[Goldberg]

I think the word you are looking for is 'inference'.

I'm not looking for any words; least of all that one.

Its used in law, and I'm sure any solictor worth his salt will clearly state that you infered, the AD's were in no way associated with the building regs.

No - I never said that they weren't associated with The Building Regulations. I've consistently acknowledged that they represent technical guidance to The Building Regulations, and I've done this because it's clearly stated within each Approved Document.

Now frankly, I'm tired of you back tracking and shallow grasp on what is and what is not required of you.

You claimed to be tired hours ago, but at no point have I backtracked.

You proclaim to be a gas engineer.

Please show me where I've proclaimed to be anything.

At the end of the day, this whole argument is meaningless and I've had enough of arguing with someone who quite frankly is not even able to do anything apart from book worm skills.

OK. Since you've had enough, and since you can't find any reference to any law that states that fitting a room thermostat is mandatory, it's reasonable to conclude that I'm right.

And now, because I'm fed of you, say we agree to differ.

Since you're fed of me, and since you can't find any reference to any law that states that fitting a room thermostat is mandatory, it's reasonable to conclude that I'm right.

So, to recap:

It is under the building regs

It isn't "under the building regs" at all.

 

[bengasman]

...You proclaim to be a gas engineer.... this I wholey refute to be true...as not once on this forum have I seen you gleen any helpful fault finding information to anyone...

Not to mention his inability to answer questions relating to gas, and his consistent missing the point when it comes to (gas/heating)-engineering issues.
Did you notice how he completely ignores my question about how he would legally install a band d boiler?

 

[beesondirect]

Ya i think too Room stat is compulsary.Use a room with no TRVs.