Alarms ? wired or wireless

[denso13]

are you saying PL insurance isn`t a legal requirment?

Public Liability insurance is not a legal requirement, Employers Liability is if you have employees.

 

[piffle]

are you saying a cheap product is not as good as an expensive one now?

or are you claiming it is illegal to fit one for pay?

Do you know anyone who "suggest a Grade 1 product/system will provide the same level of performance as a Grade 3."

Where did anyone say that?
Price wasn't mentioned - only by you.
And yes, there is a member on here who openly claims his systems are the equal of more robut ones.

 

[Paul_C]

are you saying PL insurance isn`t a legal requirment?

Yes. Where is there any legislation which makes public liability insurance a mandatory requirement for trading?

 

[JohnD]

Where did anyone say that?

Which bit?

 

[Paul_C]

You are wrong. I have explained my position.

you`ve said your installing a system for a friend - do you know you dont need to be charging money to be caught by trading standards legislation.

Once again, could we see some hard references?

 

[bernardgreen]

Once again, could we see some hard references?

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074301656

 

[Paul_C]

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074301656

Which confirms the point about insurance not being mandatory.

 

[piffle]

Academic anyway.
Subject/person has already stated on here he is not competent to carry out certain tasks (yes, his words) - so any insurance is likely null and void.

Based on the information he's stated previously, his insurance is not adequate for the job/trade either.

Now, were he to be the subject of a claim, with inadequate cover, would that not be negligent?

 

[Paul_C]

Now, were he to be the subject of a claim, with inadequate cover, would that not be negligent?

That would depend upon the circumstances. Anyone could be the subject of a claim; whether negligence is involved is another matter entirely, and if so something doesn't become any less negligent if insurance is in force to cover it.

But that's all rather beside the point. The issue was the legality of doing the work.

 

[yaleguy]

Academic anyway.
Subject/person has already stated on here he is not competent to carry out certain tasks (yes, his words) - so any insurance is likely null and void.

Based on the information he's stated previously, his insurance is not adequate for the job/trade either.

Now, were he to be the subject of a claim, with inadequate cover, would that not be negligent?

Piffle is the perfect description of your posts.

Why does rock and roll / whistle/youtakindapish/atilla etc always create two forum profiles so it makes it look as if two people have the same opinion. Very weird behaviour.

Subject insurance NOT null and void as subject only carries out insured risks.

 

[piffle]

Subject insurance NOT null and void as subject only carries out insured risks.

Based on your previous comments you openly admit to working on electrical whilst having NO competency in the subject (other than your own high praise) and charging for the privilege. That must be some insurance policy.

 

[yaleguy]

 

[Paul_C]

a commercially installed system has to have had a risk assesment ..... the risk assesment by definition will be minimum grade two, your PL insurance will not cover you for fitting non compliant with regs equipment

Having just done a little searching, it seems that the risk assessment is required for compliance with standard EN5013:

http://www.pstv.co.uk/en5013_&_pd6662.htm

Is this where you're getting the idea that it's mandatory from?

If so, then all we need is a reference to legislation which makes it illegal to install a system without following EN5013/PD6662.

 

[yaleguy]

a commercially installed system has to have had a risk assesment ..... the risk assesment by definition will be minimum grade two, your PL insurance will not cover you for fitting non compliant with regs equipment

Having just done a little searching, it seems that the risk assessment is required for compliance with standard EN5013:

http://www.pstv.co.uk/en5013_&_pd6662.htm

Is this where you're getting the idea that it's mandatory from?

If so, then all we need is a reference to legislation which makes it illegal to install a system without following EN5013/PD6662.

There also seems to be some confusion about what PL insurance is.
PL insurance regarding alarms is to cover the contractee against material damage due to your installation. ie Bursting a pipe when drilling a wall, shorting the electrics , damaging the fabric of the home or creating a danger to the occupants that would result in injury. The cover rockandroll is advocating regarding compliance is irrelevant in this context.
Claims on other issues would be taken through trading standards. If your insurance covers you to fit alarms then you can fit alarms. The policies do not specify which alarms you must fit and the premium and risk is calculated on the likelihood of that particular task ie alarm installer , leading to a claim.