Permanent vs. switched live

[Roflcopter]

Good grief, my apologies for the can of worms that I appear to have opened!

For what it's worth, the new switch is in place, working fine and dandy and now I can get on with the rest of the room!

I would, however, be interested to know if I have any further obligations to ensure that the work is above board and legal.

Cheers,

Chris.

 

[EdwardCurrent]

Not a boxing referee by any chance Roflcopter ??



Ed.

 

[mdbalson]

BS 7671 (The IEE Regs) are non statutory Regs, which means that they are not legaly binding (Which is what ColJack & BAS have said). Unlike EWAR or HSWA which are statutory regs which are legaly binding.

complying with the 16th edition regs is ONE way to satisfy part P, but as long as it is done safely, then it complies with part P..

you can wire it to another accepted standard and still be within the law..

you have to remember people...

the IEE regs are not legaly binding, they are not law and strict adherance to them does not automatically make an installation unsafe..

What ColJack has said above is correct.

You what???
What sort of dangerous advice is that??
Stop talking **** for the sake of it.
At one time they were not legally binding - but god help you in a court of law if you hadn't complied and you were to blame for an accident.
Now you must comply. Thats why they have BS in the title.

Barsteward you are the one who is "Talking **** for the sake of it"

BS7671 is still a non statutory reg which is not legally binding, just because it has a BS in the title, does not make it a Statutory reg or legally binding.

 

[mdbalson]

not quite - the error was who ever posted it would need Part p certifying, nothing to do with BAS, and no, some of us never make errors

Everyone makes errors at sometime or another.

 

[saxondale]

don't you dare come on here and try to tell me that I may not disagree with someone who I believe to be wrong.

disagree all you want - tell you what I`ll start a thread later for you to pontificate all you want but then that`ll not give you the chance to grandstand a decent question asked by an honest DIY`er, far too many prefer to confuse and obsticate ( if thats the word) rather than advise.

The answer to this O/P was " go ahead ...." nothing more nothing less

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I did answer his question, straightforwardly, as did others. In fact, mine was the second reply in this thread.

Later I responded to another post that someone had made, pointing out that it was incorrect. Which seems reasonable, if ones concern is to see that people get accurate and helpful advice.

You then weighed in, not with anything relevant to the discussion of whether the regs are legally binding, but with an accusation of pedantry against me.

And then when I didn't sit quietly and meekly let you get away with that, you started on the personal abuse.

If you're really looking for someone whose argumentative nature is a problem here, try the mirror.

 

[saxondale]

I did answer his question, straightforwardly, as did others. In fact, mine was the second reply in this thread.

Later I responded to another post that someone had made, pointing out that it was incorrect. Which seems reasonable, if ones concern is to see that people get accurate and helpful advice.

You then weighed in, not with anything relevant to the discussion of whether the regs are legally binding, but with an accusation of pedantry against me.

And then when I didn't sit quietly and meekly let you get away with that, you started on the personal abuse.

If you're really looking for someone whose argumentative nature is a problem here, try the mirror.

like I said - argumentative tit ( and if blunt yorkshire`isms are abuse then god help you when you leave school)

no mate your typical of the type who go from forum to forum (usually when the heat gets too much ) looking for someone posting simple advice to show there superiority with.

look at this from the O/P POV - he asks a question, gets the wrong advice but now instead of reading the correct answer he gets bogged down in BAS`s semantics (same things happning in the "Part P qualified.." or did you think he`s going to miss your loaded question?)

no it isnt illegal, but wait till you kill someone then see what relevance that BS has then

 

[ban-all-sheds]

like I said - argumentative tit ( and if blunt yorkshire`isms are abuse then god help you when you leave school)

Left years ago. And I am very good at recognising people who resort to personal insults because they have no rational, factual or logical arguments to use to counter something that someone has said, but really want what they've said to be viewed as "wrong".

no mate your typical of the type who go from forum to forum (usually when the heat gets too much ) looking for someone posting simple advice to show there superiority with.

I'm not looking for anyone to be superior with - just correcting incorrect advice given here.

look at this from the O/P POV - he asks a question, gets the wrong advice but now instead of reading the correct answer

But he did read the correct answer, from me and from others, stating quite categorically that the wiring regulations are not legally binding.

he gets bogged down in BAS`s semantics

Do you have grounds for believing that the OP would get "bogged down" trying to get his head around "the IEE regs are not legally binding, they are not law " is what he said. Seems perfectly clear to me. It's also true.?

(same things happning in the "Part P qualified.." or did you think he`s going to miss your loaded question?)

If you wish to discuss that topic, then please do so there. Raising it as something else of mine that you disagree with, when it's completely off-topic, makes it look as though you are pursuing some personal vendetta because you object to the whole idea of me posting here, rather than being able to properly debate what I write.

no it isnt illegal, but wait till you kill someone then see what relevance that BS has then

I never said they weren't relevant. And I have no plans to kill anyone. But even if that happened, it would not change the legal status of the Wiring Regulations, surely you can see that?

 

[Spark123]

BS7671 is a non-statutory document, it can however be used in a court of law to claim compliance with a statutory document. (see BS7671 regulation no 110-04-01)
If you killed someone you cannot be charged with failure to comply with BS7671. You may however be charged with a violation of HASWA/EAWR or some other statutory document.

 

[Spark123]

I'm still not convinced that I was in error.. however since I don't do domestic, I'll deffer to those that do..

in the updated link provided above to the consolidated building regs, non notifiable work is listed as..

1. Work consisting of—
(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—
(i) any new fixed cabling; or
(ii) a consumer unit;
(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

1.(a)(i) above seemed to fit the situation.. and so I sugested that the cable might have been damaged ( ahem... ) when decorating making it's replacement conformant with part (b) above..

Says to me that no building notice is required to replace any equipment (excluding consumer units) which does not include the provision of new fixed wiring. Any equipment may mean a shower, a cooker, a light switch, a socket etc etc. This part of the regulations doesn't refer to specific locations or installation types.

Later on the same document gives work which is not in a kitchen or special location, does not involve work on a special installation and consists of adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit which is the reason why I take the work to be non-notifiable.
The OP if they want to be double sure can check with their LABC.

 

[reggie perrin]

Deuce.

New balls please.

 

[saxondale]

But he did read the correct answer, from me and from others, stating quite categorically that the wiring regulations are not legally binding.

so to prove my point ( and dont take things personally)

the O/P never asked or mentioned the legal standing of the wiring regs, all he asked was how to tell the live from the switch

so Mr " I dont join threads to grandstand " - you actually answered his question where?

the rest of it I didnt bother to read, that may be the best course of action -let you spout on then summerize it later for the O/P`s

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But he did read the correct answer, from me and from others, stating quite categorically that the wiring regulations are not legally binding.

so to prove my point ( and dont take things personally)

the O/P never asked or mentioned the legal standing of the wiring regs, all he asked was how to tell the live from the switch

so Mr " I dont join threads to grandstand " - you actually answered his question where?

He asked if it mattered which went to which terminal on a switch, and I answered that here: //www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=777725#777725. But I've already pointed that out to you. Surely the first time you suggested that I should "just answer the O/P`s question instead of inviting yourself into an argument", and I directed you at the post where I had, you went and checked to see if I was telling the truth, and had in fact done what you said I should? Unless you don't care about the truth I can't see why you wouldn't check, but if you've checked, why are you still unaware of the fact that I did answer his question?

The OP then observed that he couldn't tell which was which by tracing the wiring as it had been done in twin brown. To which I observed that that implied that he did not have an absolutely essential tool. As I was unaware of the solid brown/painted brown construction of the cable I wasn't able to help him in that regard, but I didn't mislead him, or intentionally or unintentionally give him incorrect advice, so I don't feel that I did anything wrong there.

the rest of it I didnt bother to read, that may be the best course of action -let you spout on then summerize it later for the O/P`s

As for the subsequent direction of this thread, it is true that the OP did not ask about the legal standing of the Wiring Regulations, but someone brought the topic up, and then Barsteward posted incorrect information in relation to it.

And all I did was to point out that he was wrong.

I did not insult or abuse him personally because I disagreed with what he wrote. You, on the other hand....

I did not suggest that he should not be posting here because I disagreed with what he wrote. You, on the other hand....

I did not look at other threads for posts of his with which I disagreed in order to drag them up here, completely out of context, as ammunition in a personal argument with him which had nothing to do with the disagreement over the factual statements he made in his post. You, on the other hand....