British Gas

[RF Lighting]

My Mother has a cover package with British gas for all her white goods. Recently the belt went on her washing machine, which BG came out and repaired the next day. Goodo.

Whilst they were there though, they left her with a piece of paper stating that her electrical installation requires improvement as "not all circuits have RCD's"

I'm not aware that it's a requirement for all circuits to have RCD protection.

On the other hand, they missed the fact that there's no MPBs on the installation.

They either need to properly train their staff or stop commenting on stuff they know F all about.

[/rant]

 

[westie101]

Yep, that's why when called to a CU that was making a crackling noise the guy who attended told the OAP, whose house it is, that it would be OK for a few days and someone else would come and sort it.

That night she ended up with 2 fire appliances clearing the smoke from where the tails had arced over and burned out for about 1/2 of their length!!
(Oh and myself to make it safe)

Apart from that don't get me started about them!!

 

[ricicle]

Oh for the old days when you bought your electric from the leccy board, gas from the gas board and water from the water board. The unions had it right - one man one job !

 

[SimonH2]

I'm not aware that it's a requirement for all circuits to have RCD protection.

It isn't. Depending on "how" it was stated, there's cause for a complaint to trading standards. On it's onw it won't do any good, but if enough people complain about such methods then eventually they'll have to act.

 

[Stevoon]

Why would someone repairing an appliance even be testing / checking the fixed installation?

 

[Taylortwocities]

The father of a customer of mine had BG change the consumer unit.
Dual RCD jobby.

They insisted on supplementary bonding the kitchen sink pipes, all pipes in the bathroom and cross bonding all the pipes on the gas boiler.

At additional cost, of course

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's fraud.

To hell with Trading Standards - he should go to the police - they have committed a serious criminal offence.

 

[SimonH2]

I wouldn't be so quick to shout criminal. We don't know just how it was expressed.
It may well be standard procedure to note things the householder ought to look at - and will be done as it's a way of drumming up business.

At one extreme : "We noted that you have circuits without RCD protection. This isn't up to current standards and you should consider upgrading". Factual, truthful, and in no way fraudulent.

At the other extreme : "We noted that you have non-RCD protected circuits in contravention of electrical installation standards, you must correct these faults immediately".
Half truth, definitely misleading, and as you point out, fraud - Section 2 (Fraud by false representation) Fraud Act 2006 if you want chapter and verse.

I rather think that BG will be careful to stay at the former end of the spectrum.

 

[securespark]

My Mum had the same.

It seems they are obliged to do a Zs on the appliance and check the operation of the RCD if there is one on that circuit. I am told they also check PEB's.

I understand anything not up to current standards or dangerous they note on the form.

 

[conny]

My Mum had the same.

It seems they are obliged to do a Zs on the appliance and check the operation of the RCD if there is one on that circuit. I am told they also check PEB's.

I understand anything not up to current standards or dangerous they note on the form.

But something not up to current standards doesn't mean its illegal or even dangerous does it?

 

[JohnW2]

They either need to properly train their staff or stop commenting on stuff they know F all about.

Indeed so. However, in passing ...

My Mother ... On the other hand, they missed the fact that there's no MPBs on the installation.

Had you missed it as well - or are you far less nosey around the homes of family and friends than I am?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I understand anything not up to current standards or dangerous they note on the form.

But something not up to current standards doesn't mean its illegal or even dangerous does it?

It comes back to what I wrote earlier - how was it stated ? I've seen BG reports where it mentions something is NCS (Not to Current Standards) in relation to gas. But it didn't say "it's dangerous and you must fix it straight away".

Of course, how the engineer expressed it verbally would also influence how it was interpreted. And some people would put 2 + 2 together and get 7, interpreting "doesn't meet safety standards" as "dangerous and must be upgraded".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I wouldn't be so quick to shout criminal. We don't know just how it was expressed.
It may well be standard procedure to note things the householder ought to look at - and will be done as it's a way of drumming up business.

At one extreme : "We noted that you have circuits without RCD protection. This isn't up to current standards and you should consider upgrading". Factual, truthful, and in no way fraudulent.

At the other extreme : "We noted that you have non-RCD protected circuits in contravention of electrical installation standards, you must correct these faults immediately".
Half truth, definitely misleading, and as you point out, fraud - Section 2 (Fraud by false representation) Fraud Act 2006 if you want chapter and verse.

I rather think that BG will be careful to stay at the former end of the spectrum.

So within that framework, what do you think they might have said about supplementary bonding for the kitchen sink and the gas boiler?

 

[rjm2k]

Part of this will be drumming up business but part of it will be covering their back, imagine if there was a problem with the white goods or any other part of the electrics and a person was injured as a result. It would all be about how BG came out the other day and DIDN'T mention that the installation wasn't upto current standards, they would be to blame.

They do the same with boilers, once they said my airing cupboard boiler wasn't well ventilated, so I put an extra vent in, I didn't have to do it though.

I suspect there will be an element of over stating to worry people but also there will be people who don't know the different between a low level warning note and a danger report.

 

[SimonH2]

So within that framework, what do you think they might have said about supplementary bonding for the kitchen sink and the gas boiler?

I don't know - I guess you can speculate as well as any of us, but without knowing what was said/written then it's hard to say.

Did they say something like "This must be done" ? In which case it would be fraud.

Did they say something like "For extra safety we recommend you do this, id that OK ?". In that case, it's a bit misleading, arguably still fraud, but I don't think you'd have a cat in hells chance of getting a conviction.


Incidentally, if the person doing (or specifying) the work was unaware that the regs have changed and supplementary bonding is no longer required (subject to ...) then it actually wouldn't be fraud. For it to be fraud, the person making the representation must be aware that the statement is false or misleading - if they are not aware then it's not fraud.
Still, if that was the case, it doesn't put BG in any better light


And as rjm2k says, while it's going to be partly a business generating process, there will be a lot of backside covering going on.