Pendant fitted on beam - is this normal?

[yjones]

Hi
I asked the electrician to fit a new pendant light. I got back from work and found he's centered it in the room (which is to be expected), but hes fitted it to beam! Is this normal? I would have fitted it just off the beam (ie from the ceiling).

+++++++
moderators note
some pointless squabbling posts removed
+++++++

 

[JohnW2]

I asked the electrician to fit a new pendant light. I got back from work and found he's centered it in the room (which is to be expected), but hes fitted it to beam! Is this normal? I would have fitted it just off the beam (ie from the ceiling).

It's a matter of personal choice (and, sometimes, 'convenience'). If you had a preference, you really should have told him exactly what you wanted done.

Kind Regards, John

 

[yjones]

The ceiling is just plasterboard. In other words, theres nothing secure to fit the pendant to. Or is plasteboard secure enough to fit the pendant to?

 

[JohnW2]

The ceiling is just plasterboard. In other words, theres nothing secure to fit the pendant to. Or is plasteboard secure enough to fit the pendant to?

Well, ideally the rose should be fixed to something more solid (e.g. a wooden batten) above the plasterboard but, to be frank, if it's just a short pendant with a bulb/light in the lampholder, that represents so little weight that fixing it to the plasterboard (with appropriate fixings) would almost certainly not be a problem.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Once the 18th ed of the Wiring regs comes into force, I suspect that we will decide that many/most 'non-conformities' with the regs' requirement for 'good workmanship' will no longer be regarded as representing 'non-compliance' with the regs.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The draft says this:

134.1.1 Good workmanship by one or more skilled or instructed persons and proper materials shall be
used in the erection of the electrical installation. The installation of electrical equipment shall take account of
manufacturers' instructions.

 

[JohnW2]

134.1.1 does, indeed, say that in the DPC, and also in the final version of BS 7671:2018. However, failure to conform with that regulation will not necessarily (I would suspect, not often) be regarded as 'non-compliance', since Part 2 of the new edition defines "non-compliance" as "A non-conformity that may give rise to danger". 134.1.1 is an obvious case in which non-conformity may well not be considered to be non-compliance, but I suspect that there are many other regs for which the same may sometimes be the case.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh, so another race to the bottom?

When faced with people not upholding standards, the response of officialdom is to lower the standards rather than give those failing to uphold them a kicking?

Or are we irrelevantly discussing specific terms?

1. I said "contravenes" the Wiring Regulations, I did not use the term "non-compliance".
2. The declaration on the EIC does not use that term either, it talks about work being "in accordance with BS 7671".
3. 134.1.1 says "Good workmanship by one or more skilled or instructed persons and proper materials shall be used..."

So whilst what does or does not constitute "good workmanship" is always going to be subjective, there doesn't seem to be any wriggle room around the fact that BS 7671 mandates it, and that inherent in signing an EIC is a declaration that to the best of your knowledge and belief you complied (in the normal sense of that word) with 134.1.1.

I can see no reason why failing to exercise good workmanship doesn't mean that the work was not "in accordance with BS 7671", and therefore why an EIC which attests that you did is invalid if you did not.

 

[JohnW2]

There is undoubtedly going to be a lot of (probably 'heated') debate about this.
I don't know how people will interpret "in accordance with BS 7671" in an EIC etc. declaration interms of 'conformity'/'compliance'. However, in relation to "Periodic inspections" (that which results in an EICR), 653.2 is very clear in saying that what should be recorded in an EICR is "any non-compliance with the requirements of BS 7671 ...." - and, if that were not clear enough, it (rather tautologously, given the new definition) goes on to add "... which may give rise to danger".
I'm not at all sure why they have decided to include this new definition, which seems destined to result in all sorts of uncertainties, debate and arguments - since, as said, the current (pre-18th) assumption by most people has undoubtedly been that 'comply means comply' (or 'compliance means compliance'), in the everyday sense of the words! However, whether one likes it or not, I suppose one has to accept that an explicit formal definition in a British Standard over-rides 'everyday meaning' for the purpose of the Standard.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

It looks a bit poo. Next time, pencil an x where you want a fitting to be placed rather than giving a vague on the ceiling type guide

 

[ban-all-sheds]

ISTR that I recently saw a public request from Geoff Cronshaw for people to highlight inconsistencies in the Regulations (does that mean that they have become so big and unwieldy that the people who write them no longer know what's in them?).

I might write to him - basically I cannot see the point of having a regulation which cannot be enforced. Leaving aside the valid question of whether subjective value judgements have any place in an engineering standards document, what we have right now is a regulation which says that something shall be done, i.e. a mandatory requirement, a certification process where a declaration that it was done is made, but there is no provision or ability for any inspections, even at the time with a brand new installation, to say that it was not.

If a professional, carrying out an inspection with reasonable skill and care, is convinced to the best of his knowledge and belief that there was poor workmanship, then what we have is an inspector who to the best of his knowledge and belief thinks that the person who signed for construction made a false declaration. But he can do nothing about it.

134.1.1 should either be enforceable, or reworded to remove a mandatory requirement which cannot be made mandatory.

 

[JohnW2]

As I said, I cannot imagine what was in their minds when they added this definition of "non-compliance", since I can't see it achieving anything other than confusion, uncertainty and argument.
As for 653.2, it seems that they forgot to remove the "... which may give rise to danger" when they created this new definition - since, as far as BS 7671:2018 is concerned, if a non-conformity does not give rise to danger, it is not "non-compliance".