Part P notification from April 2013

[acmedone]

It either complies (with the regulations we have to follow) or it does not.

The primary purpose of the regulations is to ensure that safety is maintained.

But you are saying that unsafe installations are alright if used only for a short time.

No. I put forward a suggestion that use for short periods does not necessarily cause enough heating to make it unsafe. That a shower tripping is an inconvenience.

I am not quite sure what the purpose of your argument is.

It's Sunday and cold outside. What else is there to do?

 

[EFLImpudence]

No. I put forward a suggestion that use for short periods does not necessarily cause enough heating to make it unsafe. That a shower tripping is an inconvenience.

Ok.

The answer is "No, it's not allowed and is potentially dangerous".

It's Sunday and cold outside. What else is there to do?

Ok, again

However, that leaves us open to the accusation that we are just bored tradesmen.

 

[ericmark]

The question is does notifying make it any safer? Not if following BS7671 makes it safer.

I can't see how paying the LABC makes it safer when I know when I did it they never visited once the job was completed.

To be able to say one is a member of some organisation only works if the organisation does something to ensure standards are met. Unfortunately so many times the organisations do nothing.

The man in the street has no idea as to want the IET, or www.ratedpeople.com or ECA do. And once some like rated people wash their hands when one of their guys mess up the general public just don't trust any of the organisations even those that do a good job.

We all know JIB cards were given to electricians mates and the scheme operators have allowed all sorts of allied trades to join.

At long last there is something for the scheme operators to do to show the man in the street if they use one of their members there work will be guaranteed as good.

So the big stick has been replaced with the carrot.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No. I put forward a suggestion that use for short periods does not necessarily cause enough heating to make it unsafe. That a shower tripping is an inconvenience.

Ok.

The answer is "No, it's not allowed and is potentially dangerous".

533.2.1 {BRB number}.

But IMO it would be tricky to start designing circuits on the basis of what you assume will be the duty cycle of a shower.

 

[acmedone]

No. I put forward a suggestion that use for short periods does not necessarily cause enough heating to make it unsafe. That a shower tripping is an inconvenience.

Ok.

The answer is "No, it's not allowed and is potentially dangerous".

Potentially and actually are not the same thing. Lots of things are done in all walks of life that are potentially dangerous but it rarely comes to pass.

It's Sunday and cold outside. What else is there to do?

Ok, again

However, that leaves us open to the accusation that we are just bored tradesmen.

It is the enduring negativity that grates. When I read posts it is easy to work out whether people just want to have better understanding of something or whether they want to set out to electrocute themselves. It seems that some bored tradesmen can't work this out.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Potentially and actually are not the same thing. Lots of things are done in all walks of life that are potentially dangerous but it rarely comes to pass.

True but I, as registered to self-certify, am not allowed to install potentially dangerous circuits.

You could work out many combinations of conductor, opd and appliance which, subject to certain conditions, would never give any trouble but that's not how it's done - quite the opposite.

The converse of those who think up the once in a blue moon occurrence when safety devices and precautions would/do not work.

 

[SimonH2]

True but I, as registered to self-certify, am not allowed to install potentially dangerous circuits.

Being pedantic, every circuit you install is potentially dangerous - unless you were trying to argue that it's possible to completely eliminate risk in a live electrical system.

You can't be 100% certain that the cable you install isn't faulty - very certain if you stick to reputable brands bought through normal trade channels, but not 100%. You cannot be 100% certain it didn't get damaged during installation - if your workmanship is good then your can be fairly certain, but not 100%. You can't be 100% certain that a user won't stick two nails through the cable in such a manner that they can touch live and neutral without tripping an RCD. Likewise, if someone sprays water over an electrical fitting, you can't be 100% certain that the RCD won't have decided to fail between the last test and now.

And in any case, the regs do allow you to install potentially dangerous circuits. They say you must make "reasonable provision ...", not that you must make "complete provision ..."

As I say, just being pedantic on that one.

 

[EFLImpudence]

There is a difference between pedantic and fatuous.

 

[mbga9pgf]

There is a difference between pedantic and fatuous.

There is a difference between recklessness and genuine mistake. In this litigious world, its worth knowing that unless reckless disregard is demonstrated, then its unlikely any claim will be sucessful.

 

[securespark]

It's Sunday and cold outside. What else is there to do?

I can think of a few things involving a duvet and another human being.