IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: notifying
Topic Summary:
Created On: 11 November 2008 05:05 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 15 November 2008 11:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4437
Joined: 10 December 2004

Originally posted by: ajelectrical

Originally posted by: spinlondon



If the work has been notified, then anyone can do the work.

Wrong. Anyone 'competent' can do the work



They don't have to be qualified, and the work doesn't even have to comply with the Regs.

Really??

Which regs??

IEE Wiring regs?

Building regulations Approved document A or B or E or F or L1 or M or P ALL of which relate to electrical work





It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off

Really ??? I have never met a Building Control Officer armed with a full testing kit and the knowlage to use it



In most cases an IEC should be sufficient for the inspector to sign it off


Really?? what is an IEC?



Not a very accurate post by you there spinlondon. You aren't a 5 day wonder are you?? Sorry if I appear to be having a rant


To be accurate, Part P does not stipulate competent person.

I was refering to the IEE (or to be accurate the IET) regs. It allready complies with the building Regs, as it's been notified.

Whether you have seen a BCO with testing equipment or the knowledge to use said equipment is imaterial. Part P requires the LABC to treat the electrical installation in the same way it would treat other areas of the building work. In fact as I recall, a letter from Prescot's office was sent to all LABCs informing them of this requirement.

No I'm not a 5 day wonder, I did mine in 4 days, couldn't be bothered to go the first day, as I'd been on the lash the night before. Must admit, as rule I try not to do anything too complicated on Mondays as I'm usually still recovering from the weekend.

Edited: 15 November 2008 at 12:27 PM by spinlondon
 16 November 2008 12:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ajelectrical

Posts: 1517
Joined: 26 June 2007

To be accurate, Part P does not stipulate competent person.

No you are wrong again, no surprises.
Under Certification and Reporting
Page 21 of Approved document Part P note 1 clearly states and I quote 'The Electrical Installation certificate required by Part 7 of BS7671 shall be made out and signed or otherwise authenticated by a competent person or persons in respect of the design, construction, inspection and testing of work.

So spinlondon a competent person only can undertake the design, the construction.and the Inspection and testing. Of course 3 competent persons is also acceptable. Might rule you out if you are 5 day trained



I was refering to the IEE (or to be accurate the IET) regs. It allready complies with the building Regs, as it's been notified.
You said and I quote you spinlondon ''They don't have to be qualified, and the work doesn't even have to comply with the Regs''.]
So you are suggesting that the electrical work doesn't have to comply with the BS7671 IEE (IET) Wiring Regulations. That's debatable, but of course fully qualified electricians with the relevent underpinning knowledge may opt to depart from the BS7671 regulations if they are able to back up their decision. But part qualified 5 day trained people would not come into that category. But like it or not spinlondon Part P clearly lays out conformity with BS7671 certificates when doing the work of inspecting and testing and certifying. see Page21



Whether you have seen a BCO with testing equipment or the knowledge to use said equipment is imaterial. Part P requires the LABC to treat the electrical installation in the same way it would treat other areas of the building work. In fact as I recall, a letter from Prescot's office was sent to all LABCs informing them of this requirement.
So when you said and I quote ''It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off'' Perhaps then, what you actually meant was....it is up to the Building Control department to make arrangements to ensure that the electrical installation referred to has been designed by a competent person, inspected at every stage of the build by a competent person, and then tested and certified by a qualified and competent person as per buiding regulations Part P page 21 after which the local BCO can issue a Part P certificate.
Strange really spinlondon cos what you said was and I re-iterate ''It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off'' But that's not quite how it is in the real world is it spinlondon.




No I'm not a 5 day wonder, I did mine in 4 days, couldn't be bothered to go the first day, as I'd been on the lash the night before. Must admit, as rule I try not to do anything too complicated on Mondays as I'm usually still recovering from the weekend
I wouldn't try doing anything electrical, let alone complicated. Is there a carpentry course with less regulations for you to misquote. What a waste of 4 of your dinking days

-------------------------
Andrew. But I don't want you to test anything. I just want the board changing !!
 16 November 2008 11:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4437
Joined: 10 December 2004

Originally posted by: ajelectrical

To be accurate, Part P does not stipulate competent person.



No you are wrong again, no surprises.

Under Certification and Reporting

Page 21 of Approved document Part P note 1 clearly states and I quote 'The Electrical Installation certificate required by Part 7 of BS7671 shall be made out and signed or otherwise authenticated by a competent person or persons in respect of the design, construction, inspection and testing of work.

When I told you to read a book, I should of said read it and understand it. Obviously the old adage about taking a horse to water etc. applies in your case.
What you have quoted refers to self certification by persons registered under the Part P competent persons scheme.
What was being discussed here (I would suggest you re-read the original post) Notification.


So spinlondon a competent person only can undertake the design, the construction.and the Inspection and testing. Of course 3 competent persons is also acceptable. Might rule you out if you are 5 day trained






I was refering to the IEE (or to be accurate the IET) regs. It allready complies with the building Regs, as it's been notified.

You said and I quote you spinlondon ''They don't have to be qualified, and the work doesn't even have to comply with the Regs''.]

So you are suggesting that the electrical work doesn't have to comply with the BS7671 IEE (IET) Wiring Regulations. That's debatable, but of course fully qualified electricians with the relevent underpinning knowledge may opt to depart from the BS7671 regulations if they are able to back up their decision. But part qualified 5 day trained people would not come into that category. But like it or not spinlondon Part P clearly lays out conformity with BS7671 certificates when doing the work of inspecting and testing and certifying. see Page21


There is no requirement in the approved document for the work to comply with BS7671. It is just said that doing so would meet the requirements of Part P.



Whether you have seen a BCO with testing equipment or the knowledge to use said equipment is imaterial. Part P requires the LABC to treat the electrical installation in the same way it would treat other areas of the building work. In fact as I recall, a letter from Prescot's office was sent to all LABCs informing them of this requirement.

So when you said and I quote ''It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off'' Perhaps then, what you actually meant was....it is up to the Building Control department to make arrangements to ensure that the electrical installation referred to has been designed by a competent person, inspected at every stage of the build by a competent person, and then tested and certified by a qualified and competent person as per buiding regulations Part P page 21 after which the local BCO can issue a Part P certificate.

If you were to read Page 11 of the approved document, you would have come accross this:-
1.21 Where notifiable electrical installer work is carried out by a person not registered with a Part P competent person self-certification the work should be notified to a building control body (the local authority or an approved inspector) before work starts. Where the work is necessary because of an emergency the building control body should be notified as soon as possible. The building control body becomes responsible for making sure the work is safe and complies with all relevant requirements of the Building Regulations.

So no I didn't mean "it is up to the Building Control department to make arrangements to ensure that the electrical installation referred to has been designed by a competent person, inspected at every stage of the build by a competent person, and then tested and certified by a qualified and competent person as per buiding regulations Part P page 21 after which the local BCO can issue a Part P certificate."
The LABC should not issue a part P certificate as that would be a breach of the Part P self certification scheme. I would expect them to issue a building regulation completion certificate.

Strange really spinlondon cos what you said was and I re-iterate ''It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off'' But that's not quite how it is in the real world is it spinlondon.

The real world is that it is the LABCs responsibility to ensure the work carried out is safe and complies to building regs. If they are unable or unwilling to employ people qualified or even competent enogh to do this, that is their look out.



No I'm not a 5 day wonder, I did mine in 4 days, couldn't be bothered to go the first day, as I'd been on the lash the night before. Must admit, as rule I try not to do anything too complicated on Mondays as I'm usually still recovering from the weekend

I wouldn't try doing anything electrical, let alone complicated. Is there a carpentry course with less regulations for you to misquote. What a waste of 4 of your dinking days


Perhaps you should consider taking you own advice.

Edited: 16 November 2008 at 11:24 AM by spinlondon
 16 November 2008 12:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ajelectrical

Posts: 1517
Joined: 26 June 2007

Originally posted by: spinlondon

Originally posted by: ajelectrical



To be accurate, Part P does not stipulate competent person.







No you are wrong again, no surprises.



Under Certification and Reporting



Page 21 of Approved document Part P note 1 clearly states and I quote 'The Electrical Installation certificate required by Part 7 of BS7671 shall be made out and signed or otherwise authenticated by a competent person or persons in respect of the design, construction, inspection and testing of work.



When I told you to read a book, I should of said read it and understand it. Obviously the old adage about taking a horse to water etc. applies in your case.

What you have quoted refers to self certification by persons registered under the Part P competent persons scheme.

What was being discussed here (I would suggest you re-read the original post) Notification.





So spinlondon a competent person only can undertake the design, the construction.and the Inspection and testing. Of course 3 competent persons is also acceptable. Might rule you out if you are 5 day trained












I was refering to the IEE (or to be accurate the IET) regs. It allready complies with the building Regs, as it's been notified.



You said and I quote you spinlondon ''They don't have to be qualified, and the work doesn't even have to comply with the Regs''.]



So you are suggesting that the electrical work doesn't have to comply with the BS7671 IEE (IET) Wiring Regulations. That's debatable, but of course fully qualified electricians with the relevent underpinning knowledge may opt to depart from the BS7671 regulations if they are able to back up their decision. But part qualified 5 day trained people would not come into that category. But like it or not spinlondon Part P clearly lays out conformity with BS7671 certificates when doing the work of inspecting and testing and certifying. see Page21




There is no requirement in the approved document for the work to comply with BS7671. It is just said that doing so would meet the requirements of Part P.







Whether you have seen a BCO with testing equipment or the knowledge to use said equipment is imaterial. Part P requires the LABC to treat the electrical installation in the same way it would treat other areas of the building work. In fact as I recall, a letter from Prescot's office was sent to all LABCs informing them of this requirement.



So when you said and I quote ''It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off'' Perhaps then, what you actually meant was....it is up to the Building Control department to make arrangements to ensure that the electrical installation referred to has been designed by a competent person, inspected at every stage of the build by a competent person, and then tested and certified by a qualified and competent person as per buiding regulations Part P page 21 after which the local BCO can issue a Part P certificate.



If you were to read Page 11 of the approved document, you would have come accross this:-

1.21 Where notifiable electrical installer work is carried out by a person not registered with a Part P competent person self-certification the work should be notified to a building control body (the local authority or an approved inspector) before work starts. Where the work is necessary because of an emergency the building control body should be notified as soon as possible. The building control body becomes responsible for making sure the work is safe and complies with all relevant requirements of the Building Regulations.



So no I didn't mean "it is up to the Building Control department to make arrangements to ensure that the electrical installation referred to has been designed by a competent person, inspected at every stage of the build by a competent person, and then tested and certified by a qualified and competent person as per buiding regulations Part P page 21 after which the local BCO can issue a Part P certificate."

The LABC should not issue a part P certificate as that would be a breach of the Part P self certification scheme. I would expect them to issue a building regulation completion certificate.



Strange really spinlondon cos what you said was and I re-iterate ''It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off'' But that's not quite how it is in the real world is it spinlondon.



The real world is that it is the LABCs responsibility to ensure the work carried out is safe and complies to building regs. If they are unable or unwilling to employ people qualified or even competent enogh to do this, that is their look out.







No I'm not a 5 day wonder, I did mine in 4 days, couldn't be bothered to go the first day, as I'd been on the lash the night before. Must admit, as rule I try not to do anything too complicated on Mondays as I'm usually still recovering from the weekend



I wouldn't try doing anything electrical, let alone complicated. Is there a carpentry course with less regulations for you to misquote. What a waste of 4 of your dinking days




Perhaps you should consider taking you own advice.




Spinlondon.
You were wrong to state that Part P does not require competent persons do electrical work.

I have shown you where to look. .
Part P tells us that the work has been designed by a competent person, inspected by a competent person, and then tested and certified by a qualified and competent person. Can be 3 different competent people.
I will point again to page 21

I repeat, under Part P (Statutory Regulation ie LAW) only competent persons are allowed to carry out electrical work.

I am amazed you can not accept your comments were wrong.

-------------------------
Andrew. But I don't want you to test anything. I just want the board changing !!
 16 November 2008 12:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4437
Joined: 10 December 2004

This refers to issuing an EIC? You don't have to issue an EIC to comply with Part P. read page 11.
The part headed where installers are not qualified to complete BS 7671 completion certificates.

Edited: 16 November 2008 at 12:38 PM by spinlondon
 16 November 2008 02:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Phillron

Posts: 1171
Joined: 18 January 2007

Excuse my inturruption to the ongoing verbals

Having foolishly registered years and years and years or so it seems ago for Part nonesense

quote
So you are suggesting that the electrical work doesn't have to comply with the BS7671 IEE (IET) Wiring Regulations.

I study not the ins and outs of this nonesense but,
my understanding, which I cant confirm is that BS 7671 is not the only standard that can be demonstrated in order to comply with part nonesense
Any european standard may be acceptable
Harmonisation is here
 16 November 2008 03:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mark2spark

Posts: 1444
Joined: 15 November 2006

I think you're both going off on tangents.

(assuming no notification issues)
There's no requirement for a person doing the work to be competant or qualified.
The requirement is that the work complies with the Building Act 1984 as amended. (All parts, not just Part P)
How this is achieved varies, and is arguable, but a way of showing this compliance is to install to 7671 and I & T accordingly. It's then up to the LABC whether to accept your cert or not.
If not, then the LABC have to find another way to establish the safety of the installation, normally this would be by someone, suitably qualified, coming along and issuing a PIR. (the cost of which the LABC should bear)
There are other ways of course.

So, to suggest that an installation can/could be installed, yet not complying with the 7671 regs, is not entirely wrong, but another way would have to be shown that reasonable care has been undertaken during such installation that the safety of it isn't compromised.
Something probably beyond a non qualified DIY'r, or a partially qualified person.
If the work doesn't comply according to the LABC's ideas, then correction work would have to follow, or a prosecution might be the end result.

Edit for typos

-------------------------
I am prone to talking complete bol***ks at times, please accept my apologies in advance.

Edited: 16 November 2008 at 03:07 PM by mark2spark
 16 November 2008 04:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ajelectrical

Posts: 1517
Joined: 26 June 2007

Originally posted by: spinlondon

This refers to issuing an EIC? You don't have to issue an EIC to comply with Part P. read page 11.

The part headed where installers are not qualified to complete BS 7671 completion certificates.




I have read p.11 spinlondon
What Part P is saying is that the Building Control Body will not issue BS7671 installation certificates (as these can be issued only by those carrying out the work). The building control will only issue their own completion cetificate when they are ready to do so.



Spinlondon, someone of course has to issue an EIC for the work. This surely is undeniable as Part P suggests it is wise in 1.8 and then states this in 1.9

Inspection and testing should be carried out to follow the procedures in chapter 71 and 74 of BS7671;2001, and a copy of the appropriate certificate should be supplied to the person ordering the work. The electrical installation certificate must be made out and signed only by someone 'qualified' to do so. Where this is the case a safety certificate should be issued for all but the simplest of like for like replacements.

This was written clealry under the section. Inspection and testing before taking into service.
So you cannot just ignore this section of Part P called 'DESIGN AND INSTALLATION' and expect to comply just because you have complied with one other reg later on.

Part P is a complete document and a LAW and must me approached as such. If you chose to advise people that they do not need to comply with BS7671 and their work will still comply with Part P then you are incorrect unless you are talking to someone with such underpinning knowledge and who is competent to make safe departures, and even then they will definately issue an EIC with departures. But a DIY er is generally not and nor for that matter is a 5 day wonder. Anyone with the underpinning knowledge, and a full understanding as to the requirements of BS7671 can chose, but you will not need to tell them on this forum that BS7671 certs don't need to be issued.
To post that information is in itself irresponsible on an open forum. Remeber the title of this forum. It is not called part P for good reason.

-------------------------
Andrew. But I don't want you to test anything. I just want the board changing !!
 16 November 2008 08:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4437
Joined: 10 December 2004


I have read p.11 spinlondon

What Part P is saying is that the Building Control Body will not issue BS7671 installation certificates (as these can be issued only by those carrying out the work). The building control will only issue their own completion cetificate when they are ready to do so.


Your point is? I don't think anybody has stated, or even infered that Building control would issue an EIC.

The point I would like you to consider is on page 11, not page 12. It is the part headed "Certification of notifiable work. Section c. Where installers are not qualified to complete BS 7671 completion certificates
1.24 Where such installers (who may be contractors or DIYers) carry out notifiable electrical work, the building control body must be notified before the work starts. Where the work is necessary because of an emergency the building control body should be notified as soon as possible. The building control body then becomes responsible for making sure that the work is safe and complies with all relevant requirements in the Building Regulations.
1.25 The amount of inspection and testing needed is for the building control body to decide, based on the nature of the work. For relatively simple notifiable jobs, such as adding a socket-outlet to a kitchencircuit, the inspection and testing requirements will be minimal. For a house re-wire, a full set of inspections and tests may need to be carried out.
1.26 The building control body may choose to carry out the inspection and testing itself, or to contract out some or all of the work to a specialist body which will then carry out the work on its behalf. Building control bodies will carry out the necessary inspection and testing at their expense, not at the householders' expense."

Nowhere in the above quote dose it state, or even infer that electrical work must be carried out by competent persons. In fact it actually refers to DIYers.
 16 November 2008 08:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4437
Joined: 10 December 2004






Spinlondon, someone of course has to issue an EIC for the work. This surely is undeniable as Part P suggests it is wise in 1.8 and then states this in 1.9



See previous post.


Edited: 16 November 2008 at 08:22 PM by spinlondon
 16 November 2008 08:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4437
Joined: 10 December 2004


To post that information is in itself irresponsible on an open forum. Remeber the title of this forum. It is not called part P for good reason.


How can posting information contained in an approved document be irresponsible? Remember This is law, surely people have the right to know what the law is, otherwise how else would they be able to comply with the law.

You are right, it is not called part P, it's called Wiring and the regulations. Your point is?
 16 November 2008 08:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 5760
Joined: 27 December 2005

Originally posted by: Phillron
. . . . . my understanding, which I cant confirm is that BS 7671 is not the only standard that can be demonstrated in order to comply with part nonesense

Any european standard may be acceptable


I believe that is the case in the UK. It is slightly different here (what a surprise). We require compliance with the current edition of BS7671. There again, we are not part of Europe (apart from geographically being part of the British Isles) . . . . .


Regards,

Alan.
 16 November 2008 08:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ajelectrical

Posts: 1517
Joined: 26 June 2007

Originally posted by: spinlondon

If the work has been notified, then anyone can do the work. They don't have to be qualified, and the work doesn't even have to comply with the Regs. It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off. In most cases an IEC should be sufficient for the inspector to sign it off




Spinlondon
No of course you didn't infer anything with the above statement?????.

Except you did state.''the work doesn't even have to comply with the regs.

You also stated
It is up to the Building inspector to check the installation ....etc

I have shown you by accurate use of the Part P regs that the work does need to comply with 'the regs'.


I have also proved in my previous accurate posts that the building inspector will not be checking anything. However his department may get someone. Theres a world of difference.

Sorry if I appear to be having a rant, but your comments are worrying. Are you sure you were at college for 4 days as you have stated.

-------------------------
Andrew. But I don't want you to test anything. I just want the board changing !!
 16 November 2008 09:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for ebee.
ebee

Posts: 5676
Joined: 02 December 2004

Eeehh Bah gum lads , as we are reputed to say in these parts.

This has turned into a bit of a heated debate going off at tangents.

Part P is Law - it`s a part of the building regs which is the law of the land (England & Wales anyway).

BS7671 our beloved IEE (IET) regs is not but it is a bluming good set of rules to live by, or at least the best we got at the moment.

Anyone could and still can DIY.

Reasonable provision must be made for safety.

BS 7671 is one way of probably achieving this.
Another European standard is probably another way.
The approved doc mentions both these ways.

The approved doc and the Building regs do not prohibit use of the standards/regs/laws of another civilised countries methods either
Adopting another standard/reg/rules of another civilised
might well fullfill our legal obligations too or might not. You`d be brave to try it but it is not ruled out.

You are not obliged to I & T (Unfortunately I think but there you are).

The Building Inspector makes a decision and you might wish to challange it.

The Building Inspector might insist on BS7671 but the approved doc suggests he could accept another European (not excluding another) standard.

The Gov (ODPM as was) says LABC may not insist that the applicant of the notice pays for the I & T.

As usual the LABC assume an authority that they do not actually possess.


Right, will you two kiss and make up please?

-------------------------
Regards,
Ebee (M I S P N)

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik
 16 November 2008 09:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4437
Joined: 10 December 2004

Originally posted by: ajelectrical

Originally posted by: spinlondon



If the work has been notified, then anyone can do the work. They don't have to be qualified, and the work doesn't even have to comply with the Regs. It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off. In most cases an IEC should be sufficient for the inspector to sign it off








Spinlondon

No of course you didn't infer anything with the above statement?????.

No I didn't infer anything I stated. "It is up to the Building Inspector to check the installation and determine whether it is safe and he can sign it off."

Except you did state.''the work doesn't even have to comply with the regs.

That is correct I point you to page 10 under Design and installation section 1.4 "A way of complying is to follow the technical rules in BS 7671:2001 as amended or an equivalent standard."
It doesn't state you must follow the technical rules in BS 7671. It states. "A Way of complying".

You also stated

It is up to the Building inspector to check the installation ....etc

Yes. As stated on page 11....

I have shown you by accurate use of the Part P regs that the work does need to comply with 'the regs'.


Err... Perhaps you'd be so kind as to elucidate?


I have also proved in my previous accurate posts that the building inspector will not be checking anything. However his department may get someone. Theres a world of difference.

Sorry page 11 again."The building control body then becomes responsible for making sure that the work is safe and complies with all relevant requirements in the Building Regulations."
Further. "The building control body may choose to carry out the inspection and testing itself,"

Sorry if I appear to be having a rant, but your comments are worrying. Are you sure you were at college for 4 days as you have stated.


I lied, it was actually only two and a half days, I went out again on the Wednesday.
 16 November 2008 09:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ajelectrical

Posts: 1517
Joined: 26 June 2007

Originally posted by: normcall

So, summarising:

LABC inspect and say it complies with the Building Regulations (or not).

Part P of the Building Regulations require specified electrical work to be carried out safely.



Have I missed something?


Only that you have failed to mention Design, Construction and inspection, testing and Certification in accordance with BS7671. That's just my personal opinion of course Possibly backed up by Part P
Sorry to drag the following up again.

the following is copied from previous post in case you are tired of reading it. You have probably read it before.

Someone of course has to issue an EIC for the work. This surely is undeniable as Part P suggests it is wise in 1.8 and then states this in 1.9

Inspection and testing should be carried out to follow the procedures in chapter 71 and 74 of BS7671;2001, and a copy of the appropriate certificate should be supplied to the person ordering the work. The electrical installation certificate must be made out and signed only by someone 'qualified' to do so. Where this is the case a safety certificate should be issued for all but the simplest of like for like replacements.

This was written clearly under the section. Inspection and testing before taking into service.
So you cannot just ignore this section of Part P called 'DESIGN AND INSTALLATION' and expect to comply just because you have complied with one other reg later on.

-------------------------
Andrew. But I don't want you to test anything. I just want the board changing !!
 16 November 2008 10:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for spinlondon.
spinlondon

Posts: 4437
Joined: 10 December 2004

I seem to have posted more messages in response to Ajelectrical than I have to anyone else in the 4 years that I've been on this forum. Don't seem to be getting anywhere, so I'll desist.
I don't want to appear childish, Ebee but I'm not going to kiss and make up coz he's got lurgies and he started it.
 16 November 2008 11:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ajelectrical

Posts: 1517
Joined: 26 June 2007

Originally posted by: spinlondon

I seem to have posted more messages in response to Ajelectrical than I have to anyone else in the 4 years that I've been on this forum. Don't seem to be getting anywhere, so I'll desist.

I don't want to appear childish, Ebee but I'm not going to kiss and make up coz he's got lurgies and he started it.


Cheers then. enjoy your rant?

-------------------------
Andrew. But I don't want you to test anything. I just want the board changing !!
 17 November 2008 11:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mark2spark

Posts: 1444
Joined: 15 November 2006

Originally posted by: ajelectrical
So you cannot just ignore this section of Part P called 'DESIGN AND INSTALLATION' and expect to comply just because you have complied with one other reg later on.


Sorry if I'm opening old wounds here aj, but I do wonder if your getting mixed up with the difference between the law, the Building Act 1984 as amended, and the guidance, which is the Approved Doc 2006.

The requirement is simply this:
Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.


I'm not sure that anyone even knows what the arguable point here is anymore anyway.

-------------------------
I am prone to talking complete bol***ks at times, please accept my apologies in advance.
 17 November 2008 11:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mark2spark

Posts: 1444
Joined: 15 November 2006

Perhaps I should have picked up on this to be clearer.

Originally posted by: ajelectrical
Someone of course has to issue an EIC for the work. This surely is undeniable as Part P suggests it is wise in 1.8 and then states this in 1.9


You would think so, but LABC's are accepting PIR's from external sources if faced with a DIY install that cannot be verified by an EIC.

-------------------------
I am prone to talking complete bol***ks at times, please accept my apologies in advance.
IET » Wiring and the regulations » notifying

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.