BigWallop wrote in message ...

The trades are setting new standards all the time, and equipment suppliers
and
manufacturers are constantly changing designs and styles to comply with
these new
standards. But the DIYer is not changing with the times as fast as the
trades are, so
problems are now starting to arise from this gap in knowledge. Any
reputable
tradesperson will be constantly updating their techniques to allow for new
things
coming to the market and, in most cases, this is long before the DIYer is
even aware
of what is happening. So new found dangers and changes to the codes of
practice can
arise due to faults that were found with older techniques and newer methods
must then
be introduced to compensate for them.

The average DIYer still has the "That'll do it for me" way of thinking when
they carry
out an unfamiliar job. Fact. But, if the work they are carrying out can
be dangerous
to people and / or even the environment, then the work is deemed, and
rightly so, to
be unsuitable for safe use. This is where new certification schemes would
come into
play.

Scenario 1;

The work carried out on a service installation by the DIYer in their own
home isn't
perfectly done. The house is then sold on, but still has the defect in the
work
carried out by the last DIY owner. The new occupier is lying in bed one
night and
suddenly BLAM !!! the cooker pipework, or the shower wiring have burst into
flames due
to the defect left by the last owner.

Who's at fault ? The new occupier because he didn't check everything ?
But he works
as an accountant and doesn't know anything about DIY at all.

Is it the previous owners fault ? But he had no regulations to prevent him
from doing
that type of work, so is he fully responsible ? He felt confident enough
in doing the
job to his own standard.

Scenario 2;

The installation is fully tested before the new occupier moves in. This is
all done
by people who know what to look for and how to test for all types of fault
that might
be dangerous to the new occupier. He finds the fault during his survey and
warns of
the impending danger. The new occupier has the defect repaired so that it
isn't a
danger any more. No BLAM !!! in the middle of the night. No lives lost
due faulty
installations.

Which of these two scenarios would you prefer to happen ?


This approach is largely crap! If you want to live in a risk free
environment then perhaps a goldfish bowl would be suitable.

The average plumber/electrician/builder is largely trained by
experience, what he/her got wrong, like the rest of us. The prospect of
being sued does not apply to the average cowboy builder, he has no assets,
and only people with assets get sued! The experiences of most of us are
that the chance of getting a GOOD job done by a supplier is at best a 1 in 4
possibility. Yes, the average plumber learns a bit more every year, but very
few ever go on a manufacturers training course, most operate by reading the
instructions, throwing them away and doing it like the last one. Electrical
wiring is a very interesting area. The IEE regulations are a GUIDE to good
practice and not mandatory. They can't be, as the paperwork required to
cover every eventuality would dwarf even the treasury's manual on taxation.
I have seen the test specification of a modern defence system equivalent in
complexity to a consumer PC, reach 600 pages of A4( largely unnecessary),
imagine the test specification for a flat in a block!

If people wish to live in the nanny state, then they are welcome to
do so, but IMO the effects are going to be a continuous degradation of
living standards over the next 20 or so years. All businesses fail when the
overhead costs exceed the capacity/willingness of the customer to pay for
them and further increases in regulation will simply lead to people ignoring
them even more than they do at present. We want much less regulation, and
greater willingness to accept risk if we want a viable future.

Regards
Capitol