What are these in every room

[JohnW2]

your strategy is to turn the FCU off to discover what then does not work. If the FCU is already off then you won’t be able see what doesn’t work because they were off in the first place..

Indeed so, but one can do the opposite - if one starts with it in the 'off' position, turn it 'on' and see if anything 'starts up' (or goes bang!!)

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

the old Bang Bang 240 test.

If all has been left safe as it should have been then no problem.
But you might need to get a pro in to confirm that in tge first instance.
If you have recently moved in there should have been a EICR made available to you and reading that might well supply some clues.
It might well be old connection points for storage heaters since removed but , as said, it could be a host of other things too.
Once you do discover properly what they are for then you might be able to re-purpose them for extra sockets or something.
Or they might all be running lots more localised hidden lightning

 

[ebee]

PS - never ASSUME, because ASSUME can make an ASS of U and ME

 

[JohnW2]

the old Bang Bang 240 test. .... If all has been left safe as it should have been then no problem.

Indeed. It would be a bit naughty to leave a situation in which something would go bang if an FCU was switched on!

If you have recently moved in there should have been a EICR made available to you and reading that might well supply some clues.

The OP said that the house had been "just bought", not rented, so it's far from inevitable that there is an EICR.

It might well be old connection points for storage heaters since removed but , as said, it could be a host of other things too.
Once you do discover properly what they are for then you might be able to re-purpose them for extra sockets or something.
Or they might all be running lots more localised hidden lightning

All agreed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Indeed. It would be a bit naughty to leave a situation in which something would go bang if an FCU was switched on!

The OP said that the house had been "just bought", not rented, so it's far from inevitable that there is an EICR.

All agreed.

Kind Regards, John

True. Sorry my use of should h
As misled. Whilst an EICR is not compulsory prior purchase it has appeared to nowadays be a more common practice IMHO since the advent of Part P. I certainly have been asked a lot more often, although I usually decline and pass them onto a pal

 

[JohnW2]

PS - never ASSUME, because ASSUME can make an ASS of U and ME

We certainly often see, here, people 'criticising' themselves or others for using the word.

It's clearly the case that it is preferable to be 'certain' of something (or, at least, 'as certain as is possible/practicable'), increasingly so if there are potential 'safety issues' - but that is sometimes/often not possible/practicable' and/or not of sufficient importance for one to seek 'near certainty'.

However I think it's often more semantic than anything else. In general, I often use the word with an intended meaning of "imagine", "suspect" (maybe "strongly suspect") etc.- and, indeed, often use those 'alternative words' when writing in this forum!

I must admit that I was about to suggest that "presume" is perhaps slightly 'weaker' (implying 'less certainty') but, having just done a quick check, I find that most sources say the the opposite of that, typically like this example ...

Although presume and assume both mean "to take something as true," "presume" implies more confidence or evidence backed reasoning. An "assumption" suggests there is little evidence supporting your guess. Think carefully before using them interchangeably or you may lose some meaning.

If one agrees with that, then "assume" is probably a more correct word to use when one is 'less than certain'?

I would think that, when most people (certainly I) use the word 'assume', here and elsewhere, they generally intend one of the alternatives suggested above (e.g. "suspect or 'strongly suspect'), without meaning to imply 'certainty' (which, in the real world, is often not attainable, anyway). Of course, in practice the probability of one's assumption/presumption/suspicion/whatever is correct will be extremely high, as in ..

I assume that you have seen a dog
I assume that you have experience pain etc. etc. etc.

... or even, more in context ...

I assume that this fuse labelled "13A"has the characteristics expected of a 13A fuse

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

True. Sorry my use of should hAs misled. Whilst an EICR is not compulsory prior purchase it has appeared to nowadays be a more common practice IMHO since the advent of Part P. I certainly have been asked a lot more often, although I usually decline and pass them onto a pal

Fair enough. In the past (certainly in the case of every house I have purchased for my own use), inspections of the electrical installation has not been done routinely - usually only if there were an 'obvious need for it'.

It's certainly become a lot more common. However, as I always say, my personal advice is that, under most circumstances, sellers should not have an EICR undertaken for the purpose of selling - but that prospective buyers are free to do so if they wish. Apart from anything else, I'm not sure that a prospective buyer would necessarily be wise to rely on an EICR 'provided by' the seller!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

We certainly often see, here, people 'criticising' themselves or others for using the word.

It's clearly the case that it is preferable to be 'certain' of something (or, at least, 'as certain as is possible/practicable'), increasingly so if there are potential 'safety issues' - but that is sometimes/often not possible/practicable' and/or not of sufficient importance for one to seek 'near certainty'.

However I think it's often more semantic than anything else. In general, I often use the word with an intended meaning of "imagine", "suspect" (maybe "strongly suspect") etc.- and, indeed, often use those 'alternative words' when writing in this forum!

I must admit that I was about to suggest that "presume" is perhaps slightly 'weaker' (implying 'less certainty') but, having just done a quick check, I find that most sources say the the opposite of that, typically like this example ...

If one agrees with that, then "assume" is probably a more correct word to use when one is 'less than certain'?

I would think that, when most people (certainly I) use the word 'assume', here and elsewhere, they generally intend one of the alternatives suggested above (e.g. "suspect or 'strongly suspect'), without meaning to imply 'certainty' (which, in the real world, is often not attainable, anyway). Of course, in practice the probability of one's assumption/presumption/suspicion/whatever is correct will be extremely high, as in ..

I assume that you have seen a dog
I assume that you have experience pain etc. etc. etc.

... or even, more in context ...

I assume that this fuse labelled "13A"has the characteristics expected of a 13A fuse

Kind Regards, John

Actually o think you may well be right there john. I had not thought about it that way

 

[ebee]

Fair enough. In the past (certainly in the case of every house I have purchased for my own use), inspections of the electrical installation has not been done routinely - usually only if there were an 'obvious need for it'.

It's certainly become a lot more common. However, as I always say, my personal advice is that, under most circumstances, sellers should not have an EICR undertaken for the purpose of selling - but that prospective buyers are free to do so if they wish. Apart from anything else, I'm not sure that a prospective buyer would necessarily be wise to rely on an EICR 'provided by' the seller!

Kind Regards, John

Yes. Not that long ago it was a caveat emptor type thingy. Nobody had an EICR/periodic or even a quick check. Well some might ask a plumber a joiner a builder an electrician for a quick once over as to “a likelihood” then go from there when intending to buy. The perhaps decide to ask the seller for permission to send a tradesmen in to do a report. But this was not very common practice though. Then about say 5 years after part p it started to become a little more common that a solicitor for either the putchaser or the seller might suggest it as a wise move, particularly after the search for “have you done any electrics after Jan 1st 2005?” . So it has become more common where it was once almost unheard of, at least around here where I am based. I don’t know about other areas though. But I often found something had been done.

Contrast that to a house I rewired a few years back, it needed it, was obvious to me and quite a common thing, house 90+ years old, originally all gas, then some bits of electric added, some in keeping with practices at the time, some not.

Anyway, this one, the father had died and the siblings agreed the daughter could buy at a very reasonable price and the proceeds shared amicably.
Her husband was a bit of a whingeing twit though “ shoulda been rewired before it was sold to us” etc etc, I asked if he thought it should be re-roofed, re-pointed, re-plumbed, new windows, doors, floorboards, re-plastered etc etc etc. the rest of the family saw my point, including his wife, but he did not. So i glibly said why not demolish it and build a brand new house? He still did not see how ridiculous he was being. Car house whatever, anybody buys secondhand expects they might have to do some improvements/replacements

 

[ebee]

It used to be commonplace that any quick look or EICR was undertaken after the house had been bought

 

[conny]

We are moving into my late FIL's house in a few weeks. It was completely re-built 5 years ago and he moved in to it in the August.
I know full well he has not touched the electrics because he was disabled with motability issues. We have still had the electrics inspected and the gas boiler & hob serviced so we know they all have a clean bill of health. Just makes sense to have them checked on a regular basis or if you make alterations.

 

[JohnW2]

Actually o think you may well be right there john. I had not thought about it that way

I hadn't thought of it that way, either. However, it seems that we have may have been unnecessarily harsh in our self-criticism and criticism of others in relation to use of the word "assume" - since, now having been moved to look, dictionaries seem agreed that (contrary to my prior belief) "assume" is 'weaker' than "presume", with most giving definitions of "assume" along the lines of (this from Oxford dictionary) ..

to think or accept that something is true but without having proof of it

However, that's just about ''the words and it doesn't alter the fact that, particularly when issues of 'safety' are concerned, it is always undesirable to "think or accept without proof" (even though we sometimes have no real alternative but to do that).

I therefore hereby declare that whenever I say/write that "I assume" something, what I mean (with the blessing of dictionaries!() is that I believe that the something is probably true, but have no proof of that

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It used to be commonplace that any quick look or EICR was undertaken after the house had been bought

Indeed so - and that probably even if (fairly unusually) the seller had provided a report of a fairly recent inspection prior to the purchase.

Interestingly, reports of structural surveys (which many prospective buyers did often commission) very commonly did (and probably still do), presumably in the name of 'backside covering', include the advice that the electrical installation should be inspected - but I think that many buyers ignored that -at least until after they had bought the property!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I therefore hereby declare that whenever I say/write that "I assume" something, what I mean (with the blessing of dictionaries!() is that I believe that the something is probably true, but have no proof of that

You mean - like people who always knew what it meant.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes. Not that long ago it was a caveat emptor type thingy. Nobody had an EICR/periodic or even a quick check. Well some might ask a plumber a joiner a builder an electrician for a quick once over as to “a likelihood” then go from there when intending to buy. The perhaps decide to ask the seller for permission to send a tradesmen in to do a report. But this was not very common practice though.

All true.

Then about say 5 years after part p it started to become a little more common that a solicitor for either the putchaser or the seller might suggest it as a wise move, particularly after the search for “have you done any electrics after Jan 1st 2005?” . So it has become more common where it was once almost unheard of, at least around here where I am based. I don’t know about other areas though. But I often found something had been done.

Again, I'm sure that is also true, probably throughout the country. However, as you know, I am always suggesting that sellers should not have EICRs done (and pay for them) for the purpose of selling, even if the buyer/solicitor tries to press for that. Quite apart from the fact that they shouldn't really 'trust' an EICReport handed to them by a seller, just as with a structural survey (even the 'local searches') that is for the prospective buyer/solicitor to commission (and pay for) if they so wish.

..... He still did not see how ridiculous he was being. Car house whatever, anybody buys secondhand expects they might have to do some improvements/replacements

Quite so - which leads to the other thing I amm always saying - that I/we always make it clear that the asking price for the property is on the basis of "as is", and that I/we have a reasonable knowledge of what work is required - such that we will not entertain attempts to knock the price down on the basis of the findings of inspections/surveys etc.

Kind Regards, John