New Water Connection - advice please...

[ban-all-sheds]

You are trolling. I'm just waiting for the "you're despicable, beneath contempt etc etc" emotive posting a la death sentence thread way back when.

No - you were the one who started this argument, and you are the one who is repeatedly coming here claiming that I am wrong to regard criminal behaviour as something that should not be promoted and advised, and that I was wrong to say that anyone who is carrying out work which might fall within the scope of a particular piece of legislation should find out if it does apply and if so what it requires.

Did you know that, technically, every time I do a site investigation within 6m of a property involving augered boreholes that will cut the imaginary 45 degree line, that I should be serving one month's notice on the neighbour?

If that is what the law requires you to do then that is what you must do. There are no exemptions in the law for people who happen not to like it, and if you deliberately choose to make illegal acts part of your business processes then you no longer have any claim to be a professional, you are a cowboy, pure and simple.

Do you understand the - apparent - reasoning behind this pants Act?

No, but I don't have to, as I was not involved in drafting it and will not be involved in drafting any future amendments.

I do know though that it does not have any human rights abuse facets.

If so, you will understand why I and most sane people will, in circumstances where the structural stability or integrity of a neighbouring property will not be affected in any way by the works, not be that bothered about satisfying the requirements of PWeA.

You have no choice, not if you wish to consider yourself a professional, because a professional does not deliberately incorporate lawbreaking into his business activities. That's what cowboys do.

If you're a member of a professional body why don't you write to them and ask if their official position is that they advise their members to ignore laws governing their behaviour in professional capacities if they don't happen to agree with them.

If you did, what do you think they would say?

If you don't, then clearly you are incapable of questioning anything and will merely follow slavishly, as "dem's da rools". There are such things as ill-conceived, poorly thought-out laws - and this Act is one such example.

I'm capable of questioning a great deal, but I think you'll find that your belief that a law is ill-conceived and poorly thought out, no matter how justified, does not grant you exemption from it.

Now I think I, as a structural engineer, am somewhat better placed than most PW surveyors - who, by virtue of the Act, do not actually have to have any professional or relevant qualifications whatsoever - to determine the impact of my structural design on a neighbouring property.

I'm sure that is true, but there are no exemptions in the Act, and no withdrawal of any third party's rights, which apply if someone knows what they are doing.

So smack my a*se, I'm apparently breaking a law, woopee doo. And, more than that, I'm suggesting to other people that they could give thought to ignoring said bawlix too.

Totally unacceptable and incompatible with the status of a professional.

I have a project on the go at the mo, where a dissent has arisen due to the neighbour refusing to sign the notice within the 14 day period. And their "reason"? Because the extension will "spoil their view". Obviously, this reasoning will have no bearing on the Award, but it doesn't stop the need for two PW surveyors being appointed, the total costs for which will fall to my client.

Which is, of course, unfortunate, but many unfortunate and costly things can happen to people when disputes arise. Who advised your client to have a different PWS from the other person anyway? Won't that just result in a third one being appointed by the other two?

I had another one only yesterday where the neighbour said he had taken advice from a builder, who'd said that he would not do the foundation in the way that I had designed, as it would put extra load on his (correct, but only of a low order and balanced by the increased bearing width, thus pressure will actually be less than currently exists) and will cause damage to his walls (incorrect). So, he's refusing to sign the notice and wants his own PWS, who won't be an engineer, won't have a clue about the technicalities, won't be qualified to understand the calculations and design rationale. Cue more needless expense and delay for my client.

There are no exemptions in the law, or withdrawals of rights of third parties, which are based on the fact that complying with the law will cause needless expense and delay for one of the parties.

These kinds of idiotic use/abuse of the Act are precisely why I have no time for it.

The fact that you have no time for it is utterly irrelevant. Your personal dislike for it does not mean that it doesn't apply to your clients, and it is wrong for you to advise your clients to break the law because of your dislike of it.

You asked earlier about whether I would refuse to work with a client who didn't want to toe the Party Wall line. I think you know the answer to that, really: I've done my statutory duty and advised them of the requirement to comply; it's no skin off my nose if they do or don't and I don't design things that will cause structural damage to shared/adjacent structures, so the PWeA is an irrelevance to me from that pov.

So are there no limits to what criminality you are prepared to associate yourself with?

Not only that, clearly the clients are not narrow-minded prescriptive knobs incapable of thinking for themselves and, funnily enough, I prefer such more free-thinking kinds of people, not those who suck on their teeth and make tutting noises and wear blinkers.

I think the fact that you are so contemptuous of people who believe that they should act lawfully speaks volumes about you.

Please write to your professional body, ask them if they are happy for you to advise people to break the law, and let us know if they agree with you or not.

 

[Shytalkz]

Baaaaaa.

It's non-questioning sheep like you that have made this country into the stinkhole that it unquestionably is.

I don't advise my clients of anything other than the existence of the PWeA and what is required from them to comply with it; or not as the case may be. I've satisfied my duty to inform; the law does not require that I pass on such information in an impartial manner. So, where I think the Act serves no purpose other than to result in unnecessary delays and costs to them, I make that abundantly clear. The decision whether to bother with implementing it is theirs and theirs alone, however: it is nothing to do with me. It has absolutely no bearing on my continuing to act for them after that point, either from a personal or professional conduct pov.

So uh I must be a criminal. Oh dear, how do I sleep at night...? Quite easily, as it is of no consequence whether my clients comply or not; or if I don't go serving notice a month before I want to go digging boreholes.

Yes, you are right, it speaks volumes about me. And you too. I have no time for blind rule-fearing/following sheep. That's how Nazism came into being. In another world, that's what you would be. And I would be a partisan.

Ne'er the twain shall meet.

 

[Shytalkz]

Can I look forward to having something along these lines posted on my profile now

Wetbrain - I despise you and your attitude so much that I'm not going to waste a second trying to explain to you why you are such a dangerous, selfish, antisocial bastard.

I hope your house burns down - maybe that will penetrate your thick head.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Baaaaaa.

As I said - your contempt for people who believe in the rule of law speaks volumes about you. And it says loud and clear that you are a cowboy.

It's non-questioning sheep like you that have made this country into the stinkhole that it unquestionably is.

As I said - your contempt for people who believe in the rule of law speaks volumes about you. And it says loud and clear that you are a cowboy.

I don't advise my clients of anything other than the existence of the PWeA and what is required from them to comply with it; or not as the case may be. I've satisfied my duty to inform; the law does not require that I pass on such information in an impartial manner. So, where I think the Act serves no purpose other than to result in unnecessary delays and costs to them, I make that abundantly clear. The decision whether to bother with implementing it is theirs and theirs alone, however: it is nothing to do with me. It has absolutely no bearing on my continuing to act for them after that point, either from a personal or professional conduct pov.

That is an admission that you effectively advise them to break the law - an unconscionable act for a professional.

So uh I must be a criminal. Oh dear, how do I sleep at night...? Quite easily, as it is of no consequence whether my clients comply or not; or if I don't go serving notice a month before I want to go digging boreholes.

You sleep at night because you have no concept of professionalism, professional behaviour, professional standards of behaviour or professional conduct.

You are able to sleep at night for exactly the same reasons that many people who do far worse things than you are able - lack of respect for others, a belief that if they don't like a law it's OK for them to break it, and lack of remorse.

In passing I would observe that courts regard lack of remorse as an aggravating factor when fixing penalties, and when people are in prison and seeking parole lack of remorse counts heavily against them.

So I'm not sure why you are so proud of your lack of remorse.

Yes, you are right, it speaks volumes about me. And you too. I have no time for blind rule-fearing/following sheep. That's how Nazism came into being.

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen.

This sorry excuse for a worthwhile, trustworthy professional has such a twisted attitude to behaving lawfully that he tries to put legislation like the PWeA on the same footing as the laws passed by the Nazis.

In another world, that's what you would be. And I would be a partisan.

Ne'er the twain shall meet.

Your assertion that there is some human rights abuse/oppression aspect of the PWeA which gives you some moral right to crusade against it would be laughable were it not so pathetic and not such an insult to those who risk and lose their liberty, well-being and lives struggling against things which really are abusive and oppressive.

Do you think that partisans who fought against the Nazis would regard you as an equal because of your opposition to the PWeA, or do you think they'd regard you as a petulant child who needed a serious amount of perspective adjustment?

Can I look forward to having something along these lines posted on my profile now
Quote:
Wetbrain - I despise you and your attitude so much that I'm not going to waste a second trying to explain to you why you are such a dangerous, selfish, antisocial b*****d.

I hope your house burns down - maybe that will penetrate your thick head.

You keep accusing me of trolling, but it was you who made an earlier post which indicated that your arguments were prompted in part by a completely unrelated disagreement we had on another forum, and now you're attempting to introduce something which is not only unrelated to this but is unrelated to you altogether.

Do you have a logical and rational explanation for why you want to widen the scope of this argument into areas which have absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

[Shytalkz]

baaaaaaa.

Nazi.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If ever you get stopped by the police because you've violated a traffic law on the grounds that you know what you're doing, and it's only a law which applies to fools, then level that accusation at him - I'm sure he'll then agree with you.

 

[Shytalkz]

Now who's making quantum leaps?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think I've made any significant leap.

You find a law objectionable because you don't think that anybody's interests would ever be harmed by your actions, or your client's actions, and you object to the time and money that it costs your clients to operate within the law.

Accordingly you think it is alright to ignore the law, and that people should be advised to ignore it.

When I express the opinion that deliberate lawbreaking and advising others to deliberately break the law are incompatible with the status of a professional, and when I say that people asking questions here should be advised of the existence of laws and legally enforceable regulations which apply to the work they plan, you call me a Nazi.

Maybe you do always drive your vehicle in strict accordance with the law, and never break any speed limit, for example, or never contravene any parking regulations, but if so you would be very unusual.

So unusual in fact that I don't think it was a sudden and significant leap to write what I did, which, if you'd care to note, began "If ever you get stopped...", not "When you get stopped...."

So if you were stopped, and the policeman was expressing the view that you were not exempt from the law just because you didn't like it, and you were not allowed to choose to break the speed limit because you objected to the time it would cost you to adhere to it, and that generally your belief that speed limits were to be obeyed only by fools whereas for wise people like you they were just guidance was incompatible with the status of holding a clean driving licence, why wouldn't you call him a Nazi?

You seem to think it's a valid way to dismiss my criticism of you, so why not his?

 

[Shytalkz]

Fact. Whether this law was in existence or not, my and my clients actions would not harm neighbouring properties.

Fact. The knobbers who drafted it clearly have only a limited knowledge of structural behaviour (surveyors, obviously).

Fact. Most PWS are less qualified than me to determine the efficacy of my design and its impact on the adjoining properties.

Fact. Serving notice gives rise to the opportunity of all forms of barrack room experts and pseudo-legals to stick their ten penn'orth in.

Fact. In the vast majority of cases, it is an entirely pointless exercise, resulting in nothing other than needless expense and delays to clients.

If we were all of your sheep-like non-questioning persuasion, nothing would ever change. It's a bad piece of legislation that requires intensive re-drafting and kicking against it is the only way that that is ever going to happen.

You know, being proffeshunul does not of itself infer the need for blind obedience to every law, BSCoP etc that is in existence: where did you get that misaprehension from?

And you need to revisit your interpretation of my inciting people to break the law with regard to the PWeA, as you put it, as I don't. My (paraphrased) comments to them are always that the work falls within its remit; all I add to that is that it is toothless legislation as well as largely pointless and their considered viewpoint may be that they don't want to go with it; thus, although I cannot officially condone such a decision, here's a website, have a read and let me know your decision. I can't force people to comply with it, any more than I can coerce them not to. It's their money, not mine, after all, no skin off my nose and all that, but I would be failing in my professional capacity if I was not advising them of the consequences of actions, whichever route they decided to take.

Dealing with the semantics of if and when, the words are irrelevant. The quantum leap you made was in using motoring offences as a comparison in respect of my considered hatred of the PWeA, not whether I'd read if for when. Is it a truism that, because I hate one stupid law and will circumvent it wherever possible, by fair means or foul, that I hate them all by association? Of course it isn't.

I have been known to break the law re speed, for sure - especially on the bike, but I can assure you I don't usually go much beyond 135 . Yet my licence is 100% unsullied by SP30s and their ilk....

Regardless, most plod are Nazi-sheep, of course. Just like you. Baaaa.

 

[noseall]

I bet 10p that Banal buckles his seat belt when moving his car off the drive and onto the carriageway, whilst letting someone on or off his driveway.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fact. Whether this law was in existence or not, my and my clients actions would not harm neighbouring properties.

Fact. That does not mean that you have some right to ignore it.

Fact. The knobbers who drafted it clearly have only a limited knowledge of structural behaviour (surveyors, obviously).

Fact. That does not mean that you have some right to ignore it.

Fact. Most PWS are less qualified than me to determine the efficacy of my design and its impact on the adjoining properties.

Fact. That does not mean that you have some right to ignore it.

Fact. Serving notice gives rise to the opportunity of all forms of barrack room experts and pseudo-legals to stick their ten penn'orth in.

Fact. That does not mean that you have some right to ignore it.

Fact. In the vast majority of cases, it is an entirely pointless exercise, resulting in nothing other than needless expense and delays to clients.

Fact. That does not mean that you have some right to ignore it.

If we were all of your sheep-like non-questioning persuasion, nothing would ever change. It's a bad piece of legislation that requires intensive re-drafting and kicking against it is the only way that that is ever going to happen.

There are ways to get laws changed.

You deciding that as a professional you will deliberately incorporate breaking them into the way you carry out your work is not one of them.

You know, being proffeshunul does not of itself infer the need for blind obedience to every law, BSCoP etc that is in existence: where did you get that misaprehension from?

It's not a misapprehension.

Being a professional does mean that you are obliged to work in accordance with the law.

Have you written yet to your professional institute to ask them to verify that deliberately choosing to carry out unlawful practices and to advise others to do the same is acceptable behaviour for their members?

And you need to revisit your interpretation of my inciting people to break the law with regard to the PWeA, as you put it, as I don't.

However much you dislike certain laws, however pointless, ineffective, ill-thought-out, needless etc you consider them to be, you must not do anything here except tell people that they must comply.

Why must I?

For the avoidance of doubt, in this instance, save for the qualifier of being in close proximity to and parallel with neighbour's foundations, then yes, I would ignore the fact that it exists

We're not talking rape or murder here, merely (possibly) circumventing the cack that is the PWeA, either by ignoring it, or arranging rerouting such that the guff does not come into play, ffs.

I and most sane people will, in circumstances where the structural stability or integrity of a neighbouring property will not be affected in any way by the works, not be that bothered about satisfying the requirements of PWeA.

So smack my a*se, I'm apparently breaking a law, woopee doo. And, more than that, I'm suggesting to other people that they could give thought to ignoring said bawlix too.

So given all of that, and the other things you've said about how you have no respect for the law, and no respect for people who favour complying with it, indeed your contempt for anyone who posts here saying that the law should be obeyed, then I think it quite accurate to say that you are inciting people to break the law.

My (paraphrased) comments to them are always that the work falls within its remit; all I add to that is that it is toothless legislation as well as largely pointless and their considered viewpoint may be that they don't want to go with it; thus, although I cannot officially condone such a decision, here's a website, have a read and let me know your decision. I can't force people to comply with it, any more than I can coerce them not to. It's their money, not mine, after all, no skin off my nose and all that, but I would be failing in my professional capacity if I was not advising them of the consequences of actions, whichever route they decided to take.

No - if you are a professional you should refuse to carry on an engagement which you know to involve illegal acts.

Dealing with the semantics of if and when, the words are irrelevant. The quantum leap you made was in using motoring offences as a comparison in respect of my considered hatred of the PWeA, not whether I'd read if for when. Is it a truism that, because I hate one stupid law and will circumvent it wherever possible, by fair means or foul, that I hate them all by association? Of course it isn't.

Why not?

If you're prepared to decide that one law doesn't apply to you because you know what you're doing, and you don't like the inconvenience of complying with it, why not another?

I have been known to break the law re speed, for sure - especially on the bike, but I can assure you I don't usually go much beyond 135

And, of course, I was completely correct.

Yet my licence is 100% unsullied by SP30s and their ilk....

Regardless, most plod are Nazi-sheep, of course. Just like you. Baaaa.

So if you get stopped, will you tell the policeman that's what you think of him?

You seem to think it's OK to call people that here when they try to tell you that you should act lawfully.

 

[Shytalkz]

Are you ok, you seem to have developed a stammer....

So given all of that, and the other things you've said about how you have no respect for the law...

No, not the law, that particular bit of legislation.

...and no respect for people who favour complying with it, indeed your contempt for anyone who posts here saying that the law should be obeyed...

Not people in general, you in isolation, who seems hell bent on creating an argument in an empty house, when I never even said in the first instance to ignore, but to work around it such as to negate its imposition. Big difference, go back and read again.

...then I think it quite accurate to say that you are inciting people to break the law

Oh do stop being such a bloody drama queen. It's a poxy, ill-thought-out small-fry piece of legislation. And I'm inciting no one: they want to follow the tortuous process, then fine. They want to ignore, equally fine.

...if you are a professional you should refuse to carry on an engagement which you know to involve illegal acts

Nope: my professional duty is nothing other than to ensure that they are aware of the requirement to comply with the Act.

You seem to be confusing this Act with CDM2007, which carries far more draconian penalties for all involved and specifically prohibits design work being undertaken without the appointment of a CDM Coordinator. In which instance, I do follow the path of least resistance, notwithstanding that my views on those regulations are similarly jaundiced; however, I value my liberty and, let's be frank, health and safety is a fu<k sight more important than some imaginary line extending from a foundation 18 feet away.

If you're prepared to decide that one law doesn't apply to you because you know what you're doing, and you don't like the inconvenience of complying with it, why not another?

Why are you saying apply to me? It's not my property that the work is being done to. My clients, in that they are presumably sentient, can make their own minds up.

You seem to think it's OK to call people that here when they try to tell you that you should act lawfully.

In the same way as you feel fit to call people cowboys, despicable, scum etc whose viewpoints don't coincide with yours and with particular reference to you, the answer is a resounding yes. Thus baaaabaaa Nazi-sheep is directed at and to you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are you ok, you seem to have developed a stammer....

No, not the law, that particular bit of legislation.

I meant the law as in the law we were discussing - the PWeA.

Not people in general, you in isolation, who seems hell bent on creating an argument in an empty house,

I'm not. I see nothing wrong in behaving lawfully. You are the one claiming that saying others should behave lawfully is so reprehensible as to merit ridicule and insult.

when I never even said in the first instance to ignore, but to work around it such as to negate its imposition. Big difference, go back and read again.

For the avoidance of doubt, in this instance, save for the qualifier of being in close proximity to and parallel with neighbour's foundations, then yes, I would ignore the fact that it exists

We're not talking rape or murder here, merely (possibly) circumventing the cack that is the PWeA, either by ignoring it, or arranging rerouting such that the guff does not come into play, ffs.

I and most sane people will, in circumstances where the structural stability or integrity of a neighbouring property will not be affected in any way by the works, not be that bothered about satisfying the requirements of PWeA.

So smack my a*se, I'm apparently breaking a law, woopee doo. And, more than that, I'm suggesting to other people that they could give thought to ignoring said bawlix too.

Oh do stop being such a bloody drama queen. It's a poxy, ill-thought-out small-fry piece of legislation.

That may be so, but there's nothing in it which says it doesn't apply to people who think it's so.

And I'm inciting no one: they want to follow the tortuous process, then fine. They want to ignore, equally fine

.

I'm suggesting to other people that they could give thought to ignoring said bawlix too.

Nope: my professional duty is nothing other than to ensure that they are aware of the requirement to comply with the Act.

Only if your professional duty ends completely and permanently before any acts are carried out in contravention of the law, and you do not commission such acts.

You seem to be confusing this Act with CDM2007, which carries far more draconian penalties for all involved and specifically prohibits design work being undertaken without the appointment of a CDM Coordinator. In which instance, I do follow the path of least resistance, notwithstanding that my views on those regulations are similarly jaundiced; however, I value my liberty and, let's be frank, health and safety is a fu<k sight more important than some imaginary line extending from a foundation 18 feet away.

For almost any law you care to name you could come up with something more important than the matters it covers, but that does not give you the right to ignore laws just because of that and the fact that you don't like them.

Why are you saying apply to me? It's not my property that the work is being done to. My clients, in that they are presumably sentient, can make their own minds up.

But if they instuct you to carry out, or commission, activities which you know are unlawful then you should not agree.

In the same way as you feel fit to call people cowboys,

A commonly accepted term for people who choose to incorporate unlawful or unethical or unprofessional practices into their business activities.

despicable, scum etc

Can you show us which post of mine contained those terms?

whose viewpoints don't coincide with yours and with particular reference to you, the answer is a resounding yes. Thus baaaabaaa Nazi-sheep is directed at and to you.

And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen - Shytalk's basic premise is that people who believe in and advocate acting lawfully are to be treated with contempt, whereas those who believe in and advocate acting unlawfully, particularly if it's for reasons of personal convenience, are to be admired.

 

[Shytalkz]

Well trawled - or is it trolled? - but you missed the pertinent words stemming from when you jumped in with both feet: in the first instance..

The only thing I find contemptuous is your extreme haranguing over this two-bit piece of crapp that has been foisted upon us. No one will die/lose money/be inconvenienced by it being either legitimally circumvented or ignored in toto by clients.

If a client wants to bypass PWeA, then there is nothing in my remit that prevents me carrying out my work - if there was, then equally BCOs would not be able to inspect/approve, builders would not be able to build. Not so, is it? We have a duty to inform. And there it ends: their non-conformance does not have any implication for me as the designer, the LABC or the contractor. CDM specifically prohibits my doing any design if an appointment is not made. See the difference?

So...unlawful? Ffs, save your hyperbole for someone who gives a shi'ite! I still owe a duty of care with regard to the structure, both of the client's property and any within the vicinity and having a PWeA agreement or not does not change that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well trawled - or is it trolled? - but you missed the pertinent words stemming from when you jumped in with both feet: in the first instance..

Maybe not in the first instance, but you did subsequently say that you advised people to break the law.

The only thing I find contemptuous is your extreme haranguing over this two-bit piece of crapp that has been foisted upon us. No one will die/lose money/be inconvenienced by it being either legitimally circumvented or ignored in toto by clients.

That is completely irrelevant.

Advising people to break the law, and carrying on doing work for them when you know that they have not got agreement for the work to be done is incompatible with the status of a professional.

But it doesn't matter how many times I say that, you'll just never get it, because you are not a true professional.