Sponsored Links
P
Paul_C
I'd go so far to say that they are very badly written. They are full of inconsistencies and vagueness, and given the stated aim of the legislation of improving safety, the list of notifiable vs. non-notifiable work is pretty arbitrary. And don't forget that the first draft of the regulations was so badly thought out that strictly speaking it would have meant notification for things like extending a low-voltage doorbell circuit!
As do I. In fact the law already goes way too far in dictating what you can or cannot do in your own house. If you don't put enough insulation in the roof and walls and it ends up costing you more to keep warm, why is that any of the government's business? If you don't make proper provision for ventilation and end up with damp problems which you need to sort out, again, why is that anybody else's business but yours? And if you want to put 500 watts of incandescent lighting in each room and pay the bill instead of using "energy efficient" lighting, that's none of the government's business either.
Basically - and in all fields - so long as what you do does not directly endanger anybody else, the government should keep its nose out of your affairs.
That position is not supported by the Common Law of the land though, so anyone thinking that way needs to remember that it's a basic tenet of English law that anything which is not expressly forbidden is, by default, legal. Despite the best efforts of local authorities, Westminster, Whitehall, and the EU, we haven't quite had that turned around yet.
The more I read the schedule, the more I actually come down on the side that by strict interpretation of the wording, that's correct. As you say though, much of the rest of the document suggests that the intent would be otherwise, given the multiple references elsewhere to "where circuit protective measures are unaffected." But as the enforcers of these regulations are always quick to point out what the precise wording says when it suits them, we should do the same, surely?
Not that I would really care one iota either way if it were me. Pay over £100 to the tinpot little dictators in the District Council to replace my MCB with my RCBO? You must be joking.
And I think everybody knows what I would do, too!
A
Atilla
Which was the post I quoted and you replied to, then?
Sponsored Links
A
Atilla
no, not what we we`re talking about.
Nothing constructive to add, but I would like to say I have found this quite an interesting thread/debate.
Damn the LABC.
Damn the LABC.
Then for some unfathomable reason you must think that we're talking about something other than what has been written in this topic.
iinfrquentuser said he was considering swapping MCBs for RCBOs, and asked if that would be notifiable. chapeau said it (i.e. swapping them) probably would be. infrequentuser asked chapeau why he said "probably", and I said IHNI why he said that as it (i.e. swapping them) was definitely notifiable.
You then said no it (i.e. swapping them) was not
So I asked you where in Schedule 2B there was an exemption which would apply to swapping MCBs for RCBOs.
At which point you said "your doing it again - we`re not talking about swopping MCB`S"
And when I showed that swapping MCBs was exactly what we were talking about you said "except that wasnt the post you quoted and I replied too .....wordsmith"
So when I then went through the history of all the relevant exchanges on the matter of the notifiability of swapping MCBs.
And still you say "no, not what we we`re talking about".
I freely admit that I have absolutely no idea what you think we are talking about.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
