- This topic has 45 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: True or false?
I’ll trust Jem on this. Anyone who can quote from all three of the latest 3 editions of the wiring regs should know what they are talking about! Mine was the 15th edition (Green), bought around 1983, probably for around £10.
Re: True or false?
Err? Excuse me butting in but was the OP subject matter about the installer/repairer responsible for the ‘integrity’ of ‘hard wired’ cookers and not about flexible/non flexible cable?
Re: True or false?
Just looking at the codes of practise for pat testing it says a fixed appliance is fastened to a support or secured in a specified location. Still don’t help a lot I know
Re: True or false?
Martin, the type of cable used to connect a cooker is fundamental to the integrity of the installation, and one aspect of the installation most certainly the responsibility the installer, so surely it is reasonable to discuss that issue on the same thread?
Re: True or false?
stratfordgirl wrote:so surely it is reasonable to discuss that issue on the same thread?
Very reasonable and closely connected no doubt but bugger all to do with whether
or not we should concern ourselves over the issue of the consumer unit and the integrity between it and the oven. Flex or cable? Portable or fixed? is, to my mind and that of the OP, not the question here.Answers on a postcard to……
Lee8
2 Smug Villas
Skillset City
Beentheredonethatshire.Re: True or false?
Thought it was answered? As long as nothing changes to the installation don’t worry about it,just do your normal safety tests.
Of course flexible cable or twin and earth, or portable or fixed installation as something to do with the question, after all it was the op that was asking about the installation and if we are responsible for it or not, which means first of all you have to determine the type of appliance or type of installation before you can determine which regulations it as to adhere to.
PhilRe: True or false?
The NICEIC inspector is talking out of his arse.
Simple really.
The rules/regs concerning legal responsibility for the integrity of the cooker or hob wiring back to the consumer unit/ installation differs for a repairer/electrician/installer.
Again it goes back to qualifications.
Re: True or false?
lee8 wrote:The NICEIC inspector is talking out of his arse.
Simple really.
The rules/regs concerning legal responsibility for the integrity of the cooker or hob wiring back to the consumer unit/ installation differs for a repairer/electrician/installer.
Again it goes back to qualifications.
The above answer proves that, after several weeks of this thread being live and there still is no one actual all – encompassing answer to the question. Everything is dependent on circumstances. And Lee8 takes that long to tell us, wait for it… that there are, in fact, several answers. 😯 Believe it or not, I knew that…. hence I asked the question as I was trying to save myself a little time reading the regs up. (which I can do as the book is directly above me on the shelf)… but I thought it was a subject that should be up for debate. To educate…. 😉
Well done Lee8; you still can’t give a definitive answer to the original post….. even with all your qualifications. Asking questions is not a weakness; it serves to educate the interested. You advocate education and qualifications yet continually derogate anyone who asks a question. You remind me of my tutor at college; he supposedly had all the answers, but couldn’t frame them to answer any question asked as the “you should know this… tut!” was always the response. That’s really helpful…. if only to polish one’s own ego. Bravo “I’m better than you!” was the implication. Some of the time it was clear he didn’t know certain facts and figures because as an educator he would have answered, seen the reaction of the pupil and then tutted. A meeting with him years later when roles were reversed proved that it was clearly a case of the Emperor’s new clothes.
I have several times in previous topics attempted to educate you that while continuing to disparage people on here, you have absolutely no idea how qualified they are. So conventional wisdom and basic good manners would mean you would give help if you can and don’t assume that because people ask questions they are stupid. I assume you are stupid as you still patronise people while answering nothing; probably because you clearly don’t know the answers – if you did you would show your countless qualifications and experience by demonstrating your vast knowledge. You never do of course; almost certainly because you can’t.Do me a favour Lee and don’t respond to anything I post again as you have nothing of worth to offer in the way of knowledge or even conversation. Like my tutor, you can be smugly satisfied in your own little bubble, but as HNC qualified as I am, I didn’t actually need YOUR help….. if you have ever actually given any.
So take your sarcasm and stick it up your IP66 rated armoured cable gland – that is the standard required just to make sure it is water and “Lee8 bullshit” proof.Go and be insignificant somewhere else….. 😉
Steve.
….awaits expected inane reply…… 😐
Re: True or false?
Great reply Steve (-:
Would still like the definitive answer though as there are so many different takes on the rules and regsRe: True or false?
My answer was simple, as a repairer you are not responsible for the installation as you are not a qualified spark (unless you are a qualified spark) domestic appliance repairers have no qualification.
One simple has to be competent in the task you are carrying out, the repair.
Re: True or false?
The regs say nothing about being qualified to be responsible. It’s all based on being deemed competent, how you deem competence is another argument, could be qualifications or to prove it through experience and knowledge (grandfather’s rule) but to add a twist the regs ain’t even law they are British standard and that’s not a statutory law it’s a standard which they expect you to work too.
Basically if you’ve installed or inspected and tested the installation your responsible for the installation, if you’ve repaired what’s attached to the end of it your responsible for that, but you are allowed to do like for like minor repair on the installation as long as nothing changes.
Can’t really see the big issue, just do the repair and do your safety checks as normal and all should be ok.
PhilRe: True or false?
Mounting mole hill, overthinking simplicity a few comments come to mind.
I mean all those 7.5 ton delivery drivers installing all these cookers everyday, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
Re: True or false?
lee8 wrote:I mean all those 7.5 ton delivery drivers installing all these cookers everyday, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
If they are competent, I don’t see how. Or, are you saying that they are all incompetent?
I’ve met many “qualified” people that are scarily incompetent.
I’ve met many “unqualified” people that are perfectly competent.
I know which group I’d back at every turn.
In fact, when I think about it, the managers et all that you seem to despise, they will probably all have business degrees or some other qualifications up the yahoos so, they must be better qualified than you to say how the business/es are run. According to the logic you bang on about at any rate they should obviously be better qualified than you to state how the business is run with their qualifications in that area. Unless you have a degree in business management of course, then you maybe have room to critique.
And oh, wait a minute, those people (better qualified in that arena than you are) are the ones sending out the delivery drivers to carry out tasks that *you* think they are incompetent to do.
I would also guess that the lawyers, which obviously ok’d this plan and cleared it all are also incompetent for letting it slip through by your logic. But then, they had a decent education, went to uni, passed a bar exam or whatever and then spent time practising before being let loose on the world.
Of course that doesn’t hold a candle to your notion of qualifications for installers or repairers does it? That wouldn’t hold any bearing at all.
Fact is, in my eyes, a qualification does little more than prove that the person can pass an exam. That’s it.
Doesn’t mean that they are competent, doesn’t mean that they can actually use the grey matter between their ears, doesn’t mean that they will have an ounce of common sense and it sure as shoot doesn’t mean I’d trust them.
In the end though, if all these people in the business you work for are that incompetent then surely, by your own high moral standards displayed, you should be shouting from the rooftops to have them shut down?
Or does that whole morality thing go out the window when it means you get canned for speaking out?
Yet it’s okay to come on here anonymously and berate any and all?
Hypocritical much?
K.
Re: True or false?
Oh dear someone missed the point.
A qualification is a measure of one’s knowledge, a way to demonstrate that one has been instructed on how something works and has passed a test to provide evidence they understand it.
That goes for employers etc etc.
I met a blonde once who was a slut, does that make all blondes sluts.
I think not.
Re: True or false?
The point being, for those that missed it, those drivers are not sparks, have no qualification, yet are fitting cookers. Are they responsible for the integrity of the installation, not beyond their competence, no more than a repairer or anybody else connecting a cooker without any qualification.
I have experience of there inability, such as connecting a range cooker to a coiled extension with a 10 amp rating, plugged into a wall socket.
Now had a qualified spark done that the goal posts would have moved, as someone who has a proven level of competence done that there would have been consequences.
The regulations are no different to the law, it’s a set of general guidelines that as it is impossible to cover every circumstance. In court previous cases of similar circumstances are used as a guide to reach a conclusion of liability.
As it stands it’s easier to prove liability on a qualified person missing a danger than an unqualified person who demonstrated a lesser competence, but even now it’s a generalisation.
It’s all about the interpretation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.