British Gas

[JohnW2]

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. ...

As you've been implying, all this talk about fraud may well be inappropriate - as you've said, it depends entirely on what has been said. All TTC told us what that, in the course of doing a CU change, BG 'insted on' installing supplementary bonding, at the customer's cost.

For a start, although it's unlikely not to be the case, given that a 'double RCD' CU was being fitted, we don't even know for certain that all of the requirements for omission of supplementary of the bathroom were satisfied.

However, more to the point, 'insisting' on installing the supplementary bonding does not necessarily constitute fraud. They could have tried 'insisting' on painting all the cables red, white and blue, or fitting a gold plated CU, but the customer presumably could have told them what to do with their 'insistance'. I would have thought that it would only be fraud if they had given the customer reason to believe that the extra work was 'required' (e.g. by law or regulations) when this was not true.

Returning to the OP (rather than the case TTC mentioned), it sounds as if BG did not even offer to (let alone 'solicit') the extra work which they felt needed doing - in which case that clearly could not be fraud and, I would have thought, was far more likley to be a case of CYA (even if misguided and incomplete) on the part of the (seemingly incompetent) individuals concerned.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

No - in that case I'd say they'd committed at least 1 criminal offence - EAWR and persons being sufficiently competent etc, and possibly a 2nd under the CDM regulations.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Sorry I cannot expand on the comment that was made to me by "Dad".

It was raised because I was changing the CU at his daughter's house. He asked me if I was going to supp bond the boiler, kitchen sink and bathroom because that's what BG insisted on doing when they changed the CU at his house.

Less than a year ago.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry I cannot expand on the comment that was made to me by "Dad". It was raised because I was changing the CU at his daughter's house. He asked me if I was going to supp bond the boiler, kitchen sink and bathroom because that's what BG insisted on doing when they changed the CU at his house. Less than a year ago.

Fair enough. It obviously depends to some extent on the contract (written or verbal) but I doubt that any sane person would knowingly enter into a contract whereby they agreed to unspecified (and potentially unlimited!) 'additional work' being undertaken at their expense if the contractor 'insisted on doing it' - without consulation with, and agreement of, the customer. If the additional work was discussed and agreed then, as I said before, the question (at least, as far as fraud is concerned) is surely whether the customer was misled (e.g. into believing that there was a legal requirement for the work to be done {when that was not true}) into that agreement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[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.

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

No. I never said it did.

 

[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?

No. I never said it did.

SS, please don't think I was having a go at your post. It was merely a curiosity question for myself. I just wanted some clarification.

 

[EFLImpudence]

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

No, definitely not.

If it was to regulations at the time then it still is.
Calling it legal opens a can of worms.

I do not agree with your term 'even dangerous' in that context.
Complying to earlier regulations is perfectly safe, it was then and is now.

Modern advances may offer more protection.
I suppose that means it is safer but it wasn't unsafe before.

New cars are safer than old ones but old ones are not dangerous.

 

[JohnW2]

Modern advances may offer more protection. I suppose that means it is safer but it wasn't unsafe before.

Just as, as I've said before, one of the earliest things I was taught in my further education was never to use words like "always","never", "none" and "all" in relation to any real-world situation, I don't think the word "safe" should be used either - and even "unsafe" (aka "dangerous") will often not have clear meaning without qualification. The word "safe" is specifically forbidden in advertising and promotional material for medicines, for this very reason.

... "safer" and "less safe" are undoubtedly the concepts/words we should be thinking of. It is, of course, not just 'modern advances' which move these goalposts. It didn't take any 'advances' for switches to be able to be secured with screws (which therefore required a tool to open ), rather than having 'screw off covers', or for many of the other products/practices of 50+ years ago to be outlawed, but attitudes about 'how safe' should be required have, in many cases, changed over time.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

New cars are safer than old ones but old ones are not dangerous.

Yes they are.

So are new ones.

Look up the meanings of danger, dangerous etc.

 

[JohnW2]

New cars are safer than old ones but old ones are not dangerous.

Yes they are. So are new ones. Look up the meanings of danger, dangerous etc.

Exactly my point. ... and no car, electrical installation or medicine will ever be 'safe'. They are all dangerous, to varying degrees - which, if you prefer, you can refer to as varying degrees of 'safeness'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

New cars are safer than old ones but old ones are not dangerous.

Yes they are. So are new ones. Look up the meanings of danger, dangerous etc.

Interesting point.

Could it not be argued that cars are completely harmless?
None of mine has ever attacked me.

It is only people moving them which introduces hazards.

Modern improvements are to lessen the effects of people's incompetence and/or stupidity.
So, new cars are safer than old ones but old ones are not dangerous.

As with guns, it is the people who are dangerous and not the objects.

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting point. Could it not be argued that cars are completely harmless? None of mine has ever attacked me. It is only people moving them which introduces hazards.

That's obviously true but I think it is implicit in any such discussions that when one talks about how 'safe' or 'dangerous' something is (be it a car, a tool, an electrical installation or a medicine) one is talking about the situation it is being used, or interacted with, by a human being.

Modern improvements are to lessen the effects of people's incompetence and/or stupidity.

True - but, as I said, that's not the only reason why things which were once regarded as 'acceptable' are no longer regarded as 'adequately safe' - it's often just that 'we' have come to demand greater levels of 'safety'. As I said, the outlawing of light switches with 'screw off covers' was nothing to do with technological advances.

So, new cars are safer than old ones...

Yep.

... but old ones are not dangerous.

As BAS and I have said, all cars are dangerous (to some degree) when driven by human beings, which is the situation one is normally considering.

As with guns, it is the people who are dangerous and not the objects.

Of course - but, as above, our discussions about safeness/dangerousness relate to the situation when they are in the hands of human beings.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's obviously true but I think it is implicit in any such discussions that when one talks about how 'safe' or 'dangerous' something is (be it a car, a tool, an electrical installation or a medicine)...

Or a door handle.

 

[securespark]

You could argue against your point, John, though.

If you had a TT supply with VO ELCB, it complied then, but would you consider it non-compliant now?

Would you want to at least replace it with an RCD?

 

[SimonH2]

Could it not be argued that cars are completely harmless?
None of mine has ever attacked me.

It is only people moving them which introduces hazards.

While I hesitate to prolong an already out of control thread, the pedantic in me needs to point out that the statement is not actually correct.

A car presents a certain level of risk even without anyone getting in and driving it. You've got 4 or 5 pressure vessels made of rubber* to start with. A large quantity of stored chemical energy in the fuel tank, and a smaller but more flammable chemical store in the brake system. An electrical store which is capable of driving significant fault currents. And a significant amount of potential energy which it will happily turn into kinetic energy if the parking brake should fail.

* Or these days, various plastics with rubber like properties.

OK, I'll get my coat ...