Its ur choice whether you believe me or not about my experience - the question was what was best not what I could use - perhaps you should read first before jumping to the forum whore keyboard to shoot off a reply, you might make you self look less like a dick than you normally do
Workshop electrics
- Thread starter boggie42
- Start date
- Status
Its ur choice whether you believe me or not about my experience - the question was what was best not what I could use - perhaps you should read first before jumping to the forum whore keyboard to shoot off a reply, you might make you self look less like a dick than you normally do
Sponsored Links
as a whole, nothing to do with table 27274376738643..478478484..............
Holmslaw is right. Only problem is, Stoday never said (2) or (3).Another nail in the coffin of this forum I expect......
Stoday has made the following claims:
1) The installation of a distribution board is not notifiable.
2) The installation of a new circuit originating at a distribution board is not notifiable.
3) AD P is meant to clarify the law, and that clarification draws a definite and intended distinction between dwellings with 1 CU and those with more than 1.
And he is wrong on all three counts, perhaps he's winding you up.
BAS is up to his usual tricks of redrafting what someone says to make it possible for him to argue that he is wrong. That's what he's done here.
(2) What I did say was that an extension to a circuit was not notifiable and that the feed to a distribution board was (in this case) an existing circuit that was extended through a distribution board; the lack of a definition of "circuit" in the AP allowed this loophole.
(3) I said that the AD did not recognise more than one consumer unit in a dwelling. If the AD does not recognise 2 consumer units it can't draw a distinction between dwellings with one and more than one CU.
If you are not prepared to at least try and debate the issue intelligently then please just go away.
Sponsored Links
[/quote]
If you are not prepared to at least try and debate the issue intelligently then please just go away.[/quote]
At last this is some of your own advice perhaps you should take
Debate - where you listen to both sides not just spout your own side and not listen, you must stick your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA when the other side are giving their view because you never hear there point only your own BAS
If you are not prepared to at least try and debate the issue intelligently then please just go away.[/quote]
At last this is some of your own advice perhaps you should take
Debate - where you listen to both sides not just spout your own side and not listen, you must stick your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA when the other side are giving their view because you never hear there point only your own BAS
I’ll ignore most of BAS’s silly responses. I’ll use the following as an example of silliness:
Stoday wrote: The AD assumes there is only one CU.
BAS responded: Stoday, you aren't an idiot, but you are in serious danger of starting to behave like one. Why won't you accept that you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole?
The appropriate response is to show that my original statement was incorrect. But semantically, it’s right, so BAS slags me off instead because he can’t refute my statement.
Here’s another silly response:
Stoday: If you have done work that you believe is not notifiable, then this does not apply.
BAS: It would if the buyer ended up taking it to court.
The buyer would only take it to court to obtain damages. But since he’s lost nothing, he can claim nothing. It’s all downside for him, so it won’t happen.
It does make them biased. They could well add a spin.
Do you think that when they referenced a report in The Times of Mr Justice Eady giving his decision of what Parliament intended by a piece of legislation that they were not telling the truth?
The Times includes both law reports and news articles. The law reports are disinterested. News articles are normally spun to make them more exciting. This “report” is a news article.
Stoday wrote: The AD assumes there is only one CU.
BAS responded: Stoday, you aren't an idiot, but you are in serious danger of starting to behave like one. Why won't you accept that you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole?
The appropriate response is to show that my original statement was incorrect. But semantically, it’s right, so BAS slags me off instead because he can’t refute my statement.
Here’s another silly response:
Stoday: If you have done work that you believe is not notifiable, then this does not apply.
BAS: It would if the buyer ended up taking it to court.
The buyer would only take it to court to obtain damages. But since he’s lost nothing, he can claim nothing. It’s all downside for him, so it won’t happen.
No, it is not a disinterested source, but being interested does not make them liars
It does make them biased. They could well add a spin.
Do you think that when they referenced a report in The Times of Mr Justice Eady giving his decision of what Parliament intended by a piece of legislation that they were not telling the truth?
The Times includes both law reports and news articles. The law reports are disinterested. News articles are normally spun to make them more exciting. This “report” is a news article.
If that's how it appears to you then that's a breakdown in communications. I did not "redraft" anything to make it possible (sic) for you to argue that I am wrong.
I wrote what I considered was a reasonable summary of the various claims that you were making, but if you say that they are too unreasonable for you to discuss we'll rewind, and I'll try again to get you to examine the inconsistencies that your "interpretations" throw up and see if you can explain to us what consistent and logical set of clarifications and expressions of intent the Approved Document contains.
Why did you write this:
?
Was it relevant or not?
Do you really expect people here to believe that you genuinely think that the "loophole" which you have created in your interpretation of Approved Document P was intended to exist, and that if it were ever to be tested in court that the court would agree that the loophole was intended and that you were right - an extension of a circuit from a CU, through an MCB in a distribution board was indeed non-notifiable?
Yes or no?
Do you stand by your claim that the purpose of the AD is to clarify what it says in the Building Regulations?
Yes or no?
The Building Regulations say that the provision of a CU is notifiable.
Do you genuinely believe that the intention was that the installation of a distribution board is not notifiable?
Yes or no?
OK.
I need to clarify what you have been claiming, as your objections to my summary seem to indicate that you disagree with the summary.
What should someone who has 2 CUs do when reading Approved Document P?
- Should they ignore it completely, as it does not recognise their installation, and therefore rely entirely on the wording of the Building Regulations?
Or - should they proceed on the basis that the intention of AD P was not to not recognise the installation they have, that it was not to use the term "the CU" in a way which excluded "a CU", and that they should read "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit..." as "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to
the consumer unit they go back to even if it is not the only one"?
Which do you genuinely think is the more logical?
Which do you genuinely think is the best advice you could give someone here?
I am listening, but no matter how hard I try I cannot hear anything logical, and I cannot hear anything which does not lead to ludicrous inconsistencies and great gaping holes in the scope of the AD, and I cannot hear any explanations of what substantive differences there are between the wording in AD P and the wording of the Building Regulations which indicate that it's reasonable to decide that the intention of the AD was to clarify that the Building Regulations meant to distinguish between a CU and a DB and meant to make new circuits notifiable if there was only 1 CU.
Bloody hell, yet loads more drivel I see............
OP if you are not wanting to notify the work then.... change the 10mm mcb to 20amp then just terminate the 10mm into a JB feed sockets in 2.5mm from JB, add a fused spur for lighting.
Extended existing circuit & not notifiable.
Or do it properly by installing a cu & notifying the work.
Thats all that needed to be said wasnt it?
OP if you are not wanting to notify the work then.... change the 10mm mcb to 20amp then just terminate the 10mm into a JB feed sockets in 2.5mm from JB, add a fused spur for lighting.
Extended existing circuit & not notifiable.
Or do it properly by installing a cu & notifying the work.
Thats all that needed to be said wasnt it?
No - what I refute is that your interpretation of the AD is logical.
What I refute is the idea that when the people who wrote the AD, a document whose purpose is to tell ordinary people what the Building Regulations mean, wrote "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit..." in order to clarify that the Building Regulations did not intend to make new circuits back to a consumer unit notifiable.
I thought you had difficulty in understanding legal matters?
If A buys a house from B, after B has said "no, I had no notifiable work done", and then A discovers that the integral garage was all supplied from a "DB" which itself was fed by an old, pre-existing circuit, and the wiring was complete rubbish, then you can bet he has suffered a loss, as he is going to have to pay to get it all sorted out.
Now - you may believe that if he went to court, the court would agree that your interpretation was correct, and that the bunging in of a DB outside the kitchen and then running circuits supplying sockets and lights in the garage was not notifiable, but I don't think anybody else does.
They might add a spin on what they say the judges opinion was.
Do you think that they are fabricating the actual existence of a situation where a judge gave an opinion of what he thought the intention of Parliament was?
Do you think that when they said that there had been a court case where a judge had made a ruling involving an interpretation of what Parliament intended that they were making the whole thing up?
OK.
No matter what "spin" you decide that organisation placed on what the judge's decision was, are you disputing the basic fact that a court hearing took place and a judge did give a ruling based on what he decided was the intention of Parliament?
Yes or no?
Then please join with me to try and get Stoday to stop writing it.
It was.
Unfortunately Stoday decided to say that if the CU in the workshop had its main switch disabled it would no longer be a CU and therefore the installation of it would not be notifiable.
Unfortunately Stoday decided to say that the cables leaving the MCBs in that newly installed not-a-CU would not be circuits, and therefore the installation of them would not be notifiable.
And then we got page after page after page of Stoday becoming ever more inventive with his "interpretations" of Approved Document P in increasingly desperate attempts to show that his advice was correct.
I never said that the AD should be logical. You comply with the AD by doing what it says, not by doing what you think it intended to say. Hence it can be illogical. That’s why there is a well-known saying that the law is an ass.
So you have to assume it’s wired incorrectly for your criticisms to be valid eh? I have not suggested that the wiring is anything other than in accordance with BS7671. Indeed, as comms pointed out, there is no disagreement that a cheaper and less flexible design would still comply with BS7671 but not require notification. Far from being “complete rubbish” it’s a job that’s better than it need be and that’s triggered the question of notification.
Of all the judges, Justice Eady is the least likely to interpret the intentions of Parliament correctly. According to The Times, Eady has... boosted libel tourism. He used to be Britain’s top libel judge but was replaced this year by Justice Tugendhat.
Whatever, whilst I have no doubt that there was a case as cited, I think the report may well have been subject to spin.
other than the people posting in this thread, do you think there is anybody left reading this dross?
Personally i only read about the first two pages before i lost any desire to pick out the facts from oudles of the predictable, tedious, sheddy-drivel.
To the OP, if you want to get an answer out of this (if it isn't already contained somewhere after page 2) then might i humbly suggest you try going to a different forum and asking there. (maybe sign up at the IET website? full of knowledgeable people, less likely to hijack your thread for their own purpose)
To Stoday, just out of curiosity, what do you know about how to apply boolean algebra to lawnmowing? I think its heading that way......
Unfortunately, it seems as though sheddy is developing a policy of destroying threads whilst claiming that all around him are childish idiots. He just doesn't know when to stop.
As ricicle suggests, are sheddy's actions yet another nail in the coffin of this once informative forum?
Personally i only read about the first two pages before i lost any desire to pick out the facts from oudles of the predictable, tedious, sheddy-drivel.
To the OP, if you want to get an answer out of this (if it isn't already contained somewhere after page 2) then might i humbly suggest you try going to a different forum and asking there. (maybe sign up at the IET website? full of knowledgeable people, less likely to hijack your thread for their own purpose)
To Stoday, just out of curiosity, what do you know about how to apply boolean algebra to lawnmowing? I think its heading that way......
Unfortunately, it seems as though sheddy is developing a policy of destroying threads whilst claiming that all around him are childish idiots. He just doesn't know when to stop.
As ricicle suggests, are sheddy's actions yet another nail in the coffin of this once informative forum?
You were the one who decided to interpret AD P in a way which was illogical.
By insisting on a syntactic exactitude you created the situation where the document becomes semantically illogical in preference to a situation where it does not become illogical but contains wording whose intention is clear and consistent and logical even if it may be less than perfectly correct English.
You are the one saying that the AD cannot be relied on for any advice on what to do if there's more than one CU because it assumes that there is only one.
Are you familiar with the concept of doing things with reasonable skill and care?
Do you genuinely believe that your reading of what AD P is attempting to tell people is being done with reasonable skill and care?
Are you familiar with the concept of doing things which are to the best of your knowledge and belief correct?
People come here for advice, Stoday because they expect to find people who know more than them who will give them valid information.
Are you really saying that to the best of your knowledge and belief the following are true:
- The Building Regulations intend that modifying a CU by removing or bypassing the main switch makes the installation of it non-notifiable.
- That new cables connected to previously unused breakers in a distribution board do not count as new circuits and are therefore not notifiable.
- That new cables connected to previously unused breakers in a CU do not count as new circuits if there's more than one CU and are therefore not notifiable.
Which do you really think is more logical:
- Someone with more than one CU should decide that "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit..." does not apply to them because they have more than one because that must be what the Approved Document is trying to tell them?
Or
- they should decide that "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit..." should be read as "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit they go back to even if it is not the only one" because that must be what the Approved Document is trying to tell them?
No. You said that nobody could suffer a loss if they were told that no notifiable work had been done when it had been. The loss could equally be that they had to foot the bill later on to have the electrical work checked when they found out that they had no guarantees that it complied with the law. It could be that they feared the house might turn out to be worth less to them because if the irregularity and they might take the view that they would not have paid the amount that they did had they known of the irregularity.
People who believe that they have been misled by the seller in a transaction with a value of several hundred thousand pounds can and do take legal action.
Here is an example - it's not for the same type of misleading statements, but it does show that legal action does happen:
http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/content.aspx?id=177
Here is a solicitor advising that
"Another area where sellers often cause themselves expensive problems relates to pre-contract enquiries which are forms submitted by the buyer, posing questions relating to the property, which the seller has to answer. These questions, which are in the form of a two part property information pack are submitted by the buyer to the seller and if answered fraudulently or negligently can form the basis for the issue of legal proceedings by the buyer against the seller claiming damages."
So it is something to be aware of, it can and does happen, and if it does then the court may well rule that a defendant's decision that "Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit..." did not apply to them because they had more than one consumer unit was unreasonable.
Yes, it's all ifs, mights and maybes, but it all comes down to whether you, as an intelligent, reasonable and knowledgeable person who is an electrical engineer and who can understand descriptions of electrical work are acting intelligently and reasonably when you tell people that AD P does not make new cables back to a CU notifiable if there's more than one CU.
It is often the case that the best choice is notifiable and inferior ones are not. People should not be advised to adopt inferior solutions just to avoid notification, they should be advised to do a good job.
Be that as it may, that does not alter the fact that he did make judgements based on his views of what legislation intended.
And that is not rare behaviour and it is not limited to him - it's what judges are called on to do all the time and it's how our legal system develops.
So I have cited a case, you said just one would do, so I did not write utter tosh or nonsense.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
- Status
Sponsored Links
