On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:43:11 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:
I think people are only seeing the money side of things on this. All I read
in replies is the cost of this, and the cost of that, if these changes come
into play, it's going to cost Y extra to the trades people. What about the
lives at the end of this? Never mind "how many out of X inhabitants" die.
What about the small few that "are" crocking because of it?
This is a very thin argument. It is a *very* small few that pale
into insignificance in the totality of accidents in the home let alone
outside on the roads. Do we legislate requiring everybody to be
driven around by a government official driver? Perhaps that was what
Blunkett was trying out.......
You DIY wrong you DIE right, simple. Your fault? Or is it someone else's
fault? The electricity supplier must be at fault, right? The wiring
manufacturer is at fault, OK? The Sparks that installed it? The guy who
tested it "after" the sparks fitted it? Who's at fault if "you" cock up?
You?
Legislation is not going to prevent idiots from doing incompetent DIY
work. You only have to listen to conversations in DIY stores some
weekends to know that there are people who will do stupid things come
what may.
Change of scenario. You have building work done by someone who has made
profit from that labour. What gets built, falls down within a year. Who do
you sue? Forget the ramblings about different contracts and things guys,
I've seen and heard it all before. I want the nitty gritty here. Who do
you sue?
Said builder is part of a voluntary organisation or scheme of some sort. He
has work recommended by them to other customers. He cocks up once, he gets
smack on wrist from organ grinder. He cocks up again, more severe warning
from the organ master. Third cock up and he's outta there, right? No more
work for real profit because he's useless, right? Wrong! He's allowed to
continue, even though he's not part of a national register of builders,
doing safe and sound work for profit.
When a building is constructed, assuming (and it is an assumption)
that building control is involved, it is or should be inspected for
safety and compliance with most of the important regulations during
construction.
Electrician is part of the same sort of voluntary scheme, organisation,
institute or whatever. He also has his work recommended by these scheme
things. He cocks up once, he gets smacked wrist. He cocks up twice, he
gets real roasting from said organisation. Third cock up and he's out
walking the streets, right? Another "guy next door does" wannabees? No!
He's also allowed to do work while not registered with a national register.
No more than a slight drop in wages.
Now make what was a voluntary scheme, compulsory. He must register with
some national registration scheme that can randomly check his work when and
if "they" see fit. Like CORGI, NACOSS Etc. are (should be). His third
cock up should show that he's not capable of doing this type of work. He's
a danger to others around him. He's useless, to put it bluntly. "But he
passed all the exams" He cheated !!! "He's been doing it for years". Get
all his work checked, NOW !!!
There is a huge difference. These are self certification schemes.
The trade associations will typically check a member's work once a
year - usually a couple of jobs. AIUI, this is what CORGI does.
They are by no means random checks and represent a sample of probably
1-2% of the jobs undertaken during the year.
With an error with gas fitting resulting in a leak, it hopefully
becomes obvious to the householder before anything bad happens,
although it is possible for the incompetent to create other dangerous
situations by inadequate ventilation that is not immediately obvious
to the casual observer.
With electricity, it is possible to wire an installation to an
extremely poor standard and break no end of rules and it will still
work - even pass the instrumented tests. The electrician can self
certify. Then NICEIC and the other cartels come along and do a 2%
sample? I'm not impressed.
It brings in higher standards, and it brings in good all round workmanship
to everyone. House sales will need checked by registered and competent
schemes. These schemes will eventually weed out the crap, believe me.
No I don't. It will encourage more bodged jobs and dangerous
practices by the incompetent to save money, more trailing extensions
etc.
It won't address those who are determined to bodge because there is no
way to detect them except at house sale time and perhaps not even
then.
For the competent in other trades who have been doing perfectly
competent small electrical work for years it is likely to drive the
more conscientious not to do the work.
For the cowboys it will make no difference especially if their main
business is not electrical.
Maybe I'm working in other countries to much, but the differences I see in
workmanship are amazing. Maybe it's the military training I went through to
get my qualifications, but the discipline I see in other peoples work is
terrible. I still hear the words "Oh bugger it, that'll do it. "Leave it
like that, it's good enough" on a what should be a site full of professional
people.
So why do you think that a self certification scheme is going to make
a difference? The case is far from convincing. It's one thing
having self certification schemes for loft insulation and double
glazing, but quite another for allegedly more consequential things
like electricity.
It isn't just the electrical trades that are coming under scrutiny. All
building and maintenance work is up for a re-shuffle. I think the sooner
these new schemes come in to force, and I mean force, the better for
everyone.
Sorry about the long ramblings again, but it really get to me this type of
thing. I work along side the people dealing with all the left leftovers of
these types of "Accidents" in the home. I see and hear what these people
have to deal with. I know of the statistics, and how they are shuffled to
make sense of them.
So did Benjamin Disraeli.
These things need addressing, and if it has to take
government and law enforcement to bring it into line once and for all, then
so be it.
Except that this is pointless and ill conceived legislation. THe
reality is that it is unenforcable and the inspection levels are
likely to be too poor to make it worthwhile.
My family and I live a building of over one hundred year in age.
It isn't square. It isn't truly upright, even. But it has stood on this
one spot for over one hundred years without even, what would now be, a
proper foundation working. Try achieving that with a new build now.
Just remember the lives saved at the end of this. Not the few that have
died.
If I thought that it would make any difference, then I would be more
inclined to support a concept like this. However it is poorly thought
out and implemented and is likely to do anything apart from increasing
costs all round.
--
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|