On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 09:18:24 +0100, Vidcapper
wrote:

So if I change a plug, or replace a fuse, I'll have to call someone in?

Some minor works are exempt, but the rules are none too clear
presently.

PoP

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:51:37 +0100, "Frank X"
wrote:


The obvious option in this selected instance, bartering, is not an
option any more because of the issue of the electrical certificate.



Why can't you still barter?


Because the certificate would be proof positive of a Vat fraud and a
fraud against the business.


Providing we're both paying higher rate tax (And accepting therefore
we've already had some income at lower rate) I can't see where my
calculations are wrong.


Even with full VAT + higher rate + NI. I make the tax mans cut of every
additional £1 earnt only 55.5%.


I don't personally know the detail of how the individual taxes are
applied, where the limits are but at the very least there's excise
duty on road fuels, vehicle excise duty, "new car tax",and council
tax, as well as all the "nickle and dime" permits, licences, stamp
duties, and charges (OPRA etc).
to go towards the 80%.

The current government is based from top to bottom on lies and deception
(mainly to avoid the impractical laws they introduce) why don't you just
copy their example and do what you have always done.


Good idea

DG

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 09:18:24 +0100, Vidcapper
wrote:

In uk.politics.misc on Fri, 3 Oct 2003 at 15:25:29, derek wrote :

uk.finance + uk.politics.misc added

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:40:15 +0100, PoP
wrote:

About a new requirement from next April that all domestic electricaL
work will have to be certified by a qualified electrician.

So if I change a plug, or replace a fuse, I'll have to call someone in?

That's not "domestic electrical work" IE work on a house.

But it's almost as bad as that, it's pretty bad now before they've
even started. I bought an ordinary ceiling fan from B&Q, called a
local electrician in to fit it and he refused "your ceiling's too low
mate it's against the rules" but I have an ordinary modern house built
in 1976 the ceiling is 7' 6" from the floor. "Somebody might pick up a
little child from the floor and throw it up into the whirling blades
of the fan"

So I fitted it myself.

1 year later got a Corgi man in, he came into the front room and said
"You can't have an open gas fire in a room with a ceiling fan" I said
we don't use them both at the same time the fan is to cool us down the
fire is to make us warm" and even if we did the fan has no effect on
the fire. Doesn't matter he said It's against the rules, I can't
service the fire.

And they haven't started yet!


One of the things bothering me is that I'll have to have all these
petty non- compliances resolved before I can sell the house.


DG

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 11:50:16 +0100, PoP
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 10:31:04 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I think that the reality is that most people will carry on as before
and in the event that they sell the property, pay for an inspection,
which they would have to do anyway.

The possible issue with this could that if the work carried out was
not up to certification standards and material or life was lost before
it was eventually certified, the person carrying out the work would
most likely be sued and their professional indemnity insurance would
most likely not cover them.

I was really thinking of DIY when I made that point, but for
professionals I agree with you.


That could happen now without the new
regs, but with the new regs the certification should be carried out at
the point of installation, not some indeterminate time later.

And what about a situation where some work was carried out and not
certified, and someone else comes along and bodges a change from which
loss results? If the initial changes weren't certified then the
practitioner may well find himself facing a charge due to someone
elses poor work. Again, could happen now.

The new regulations do allow limited work to be done without
certification (minor works). This is where the argument on the
government's part falls down even further. If a minor work such as
an addition to a circuit is done incompetently and causes a fire or
other problem, then what happens? It didn't require notification.
Apart from the statistical factor of the amount of wiring, wiring
accessories and so on required for a full house rewire being Nx
greater than that for a minor work, there is no real basis to say that
somebody who can do a minor work competently can't do a full rewire or
vice versa.


I see some good in these new requirements in so far that if the
standard 16th edition tests are carried out then the likelihood is
that the installation is safe, and certificated as such.

Agreed, but it doesn't require a sledgehammer like this to achieve
that.


The bit I do not like about these new regulations (and which I
continue to badger government about) is the notion that you have to be
NICEIC registered in order to prove you can write certificates.

That's because of the real agenda which is to force tradesman to be
members of organisations who document their members. First of all
this promotes the closed shop mentality which is a carrot for the
trade union leaders. Secondly and more importantly, it is a way of
keeping tabs on tradesmen for tax purposes.

If customers know that a certificate has to be issued, I suspect that
fewer tradesmen will be doing work for cash. Hence the government
picks up VAT, income tax and national insurance.
I don't condone tax evasion for one moment, but if the government
would like to keep tabs for this reason then it should be honest about
it and not introduce control in this way.
I'm
going to college in the new year to do the C&G2391 course which will
provide me with the knowledge to perform the tests. From that (and
using the approved test equipment) I could most likely write valid
certificates. But those certificates would be meaningless unless I
were an NICEIC member.

This is like saying to someone that they have just passed their
driving test but they aren't allowed on the road until they have
gained their AA membership. The bit that government can't grasp is
that NICEIC membership does not equate to improved safety.

I'm sure they do. It just happens to be a convenient organisation
with a suitable bureaucracy to track its members whereby they can
outsource the form of tracking mentioned above at zero cost to the tax
payer, thereby claiming another victory.
Their undoing will be that they have patently listened to the lobbying
of this organisation and have ignored the electorate.

What goes around, comes around.......


PoP

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"derek" wrote in message
...


I don't personally know the detail of how the individual taxes are
applied, where the limits are but at the very least there's excise
duty on road fuels, vehicle excise duty, "new car tax",and council
tax, as well as all the "nickle and dime" permits, licences, stamp
duties, and charges (OPRA etc).
to go towards the 80%.

fuel duty I'll give you, but we are not talking serious money. A higher rate
tax payer can probably take all this over stuff into account and offset it
against lower tax bands and allowances and still come out with an overall
tax rate less than the marginal rate of 55.5%.

Don't get me wrong, only getting to keep 44.5% of the money you earn is a
disgrace but don't overplay your hand.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 11:58:21 +0100, PoP
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:32:35 +0100, Mike Harrison
wrote:

Second small snag - LAs are likely to charge 100 quid upwards for processing notices.

Furhter info available on that.

I spoke with the building control manager of our local council about
this a couple of days ago. He and his department will be responsible
for carrying out these tests. And he wasn't aware that from next April
this is going to land on his plate.

Re costs, he wasn't able to give exact guidance but did say that for
carrying out window inspections the standard cost is £70. If the
electrical inspection is broadly the same amount of work then that's
what the bill is likely to be. However I intimated that perhaps the
testing might have to be more thorough and take more time - and he
didn't flinch when I said maybe the bill would be £250 or more.

So I carry out a general DIY type job for a householder to fit a new
light fitting and charge him £30 for the job. Then the council come
along and stiff the householder for another £250. If it weren't for
the requirement to be an NICEIC member I might have been able to carry
out those tests and issue a certificate for an all in cost of say £40
(a £10 uplift - I'm already on-site so no call-out charge to issue the
certificate). So the householder will get badly stiffed by this new
legislation.

I think that this would be a minor work, but I take your point.



PoP

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:50:34 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I was really thinking of DIY when I made that point, but for
professionals I agree with you.

Yes, rereading your message I did tend to infer the tradesman rather
than the DIY bodger.

Apart from the statistical factor of the amount of wiring, wiring
accessories and so on required for a full house rewire being Nx
greater than that for a minor work, there is no real basis to say that
somebody who can do a minor work competently can't do a full rewire or
vice versa.

Absolutely.

If customers know that a certificate has to be issued, I suspect that
fewer tradesmen will be doing work for cash. Hence the government
picks up VAT, income tax and national insurance.

Actually I see the converse argument - but either could be right.

Lets say that the householder has a need for some relatively minor
work to be undertaken, which according to the new regs requires
certification. Tradesman says "100 quid for cash, or with certificate
300 quid". I tend to think that a large number of householders would
be keen to save the 200 quid.

I don't condone tax evasion for one moment, but if the government
would like to keep tabs for this reason then it should be honest about
it and not introduce control in this way.

Agreed. Only until the Labour government came along it was perfectly
legal to mitigate your tax affairs so as to legally pay the minimum
amount of tax possible - that was referred to as tax avoidance.
Nothing wrong with that. Only now it is your responsibility to pay as
much tax as possible to the exchequor.

Tax evasion is another matter - where tax is due but you fail to pay
it.

The Lord Levy's of this world are exempt from these rules because they
happen to be Labour Party supporters:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/825676.stm

Their undoing will be that they have patently listened to the lobbying
of this organisation and have ignored the electorate.

Whilst I believe that Labour will be returned at the next election I'm
comfortable that their majority will be significantly reduced as
things stand today. There's a couple of reasons for this.

First, where's the opposition? The Tories haven't woken up yet to the
idea that the country doesn't like baldie who is currently leading
them. Second, the electorate are not yet p'd off enough with Labour to
do the job properly.

From a personal standpoint I want Labour to be returned for a third
term. Reason being that they've sowed lots of seeds that are going to
erupt, and they should carry the can in the full glare of the
electorate. That should keep them safely out of harms way for at least
a couple of parliaments.

Problem is that if the Tories get in then they will carry the can for
those deeds, and we'll have the same game of political ping-pong going
that was there in the 70's. I don't rate the LibDems, they are just
Labour in disguise.

Another issue that Blair has seriously overlooked in my opinion is
these student fees that they've been so keen on increasing. Lots of
students will be very unhappy at having to take on massive loans so
early in their careers - and may spend a lifetime never voting for
Labour.

PoP

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 13:08:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I think that this would be a minor work, but I take your point.

It may not be. I did a job recently for a householder where a bulb was
smashed in the kitchen light fitting, leaving the wire element of the
bulb poking out at a dangerous angle - it was one of these shrouded
light fittings with 3 bulbs and lampholders. The only reasonable way
of fixing this was to take the light fitting off the ceiling and
dismantle it, re-assemble, then put it back.

Being in the kitchen (or bathroom) and having physically disturbed the
installation means that this work would be covered by the new regs,
and I would expect to be charging in the region of 20-30 pounds for
that job (from memory I think I actually charged 10 pounds because I
was working on some other minor jobs around the house).

PoP

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:56:12 +0100, John Armstrong
wrote:

What if it is a kitchen light fitting?

It was. As explained in another reply, if I had not needed to remove
the light fitting from the ceiling then it would not have been covered
by the new regs, but because I disturbed the electrical installation
then it would have been.

I wonder about the idiocy of the rule regarding a kitchen/diner?
Presumably (unless it is blatantly kitchen) I can pretend it is in the
dining room to avoid the certification. Or a kitchen if I want to
protect my arse from litigation.

PoP

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 12:54:05 +0100, "Frank X"
wrote:

Don't get me wrong, only getting to keep 44.5% of the money you earn is a
disgrace but don't overplay your hand.

Your figures are not unrealistic IMHO.

If you think about this logically then when you get up on Monday
morning to do your mon-fri stint you finally start earning money for
yourself at about 3pm on Wednesday afternoon. Up until then you are
working for Gordon Brown and his grandious tax squandering schemes.

PoP

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:
1 year later got a Corgi man in, he came into the front room and said
"You can't have an open gas fire in a room with a ceiling fan"

I've heard of that reason before.

Anyone care to speculate as to the reason? An *extractor* fan I can
understand.

--
*I want it all and I want it delivered

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:30:32 +0100, derek
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:51:37 +0100, "Frank X"
wrote:


The obvious option in this selected instance, bartering, is not an
option any more because of the issue of the electrical certificate.



Why can't you still barter?


Because the certificate would be proof positive of a Vat fraud and a
fraud against the business.

why is bartering VAT fraud?


--=20
Peter Saxton from London

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:41:15 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:


I've heard of that reason before.

Anyone care to speculate as to the reason? An *extractor* fan I can
understand.


It reduces the strength of the draw on the chimney allegedly.



greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On 4 Oct 2003 14:44:35 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

How many lives will these new regulations save?

According to the horses mouth - Nick Raynsford MP who is the minister
in charge of this shoddy legislation - his following response was
returned - I have a copy of the official letter from him to me. I
quote his words verbatim:

"We estimate the new requirements should reduce the number of deaths
by about 8 per year, injuries by about 550 per year and fires by about
1500 per year in England and Wales. These are reductions of up to 30%
over the current rates and the savings from these reductions
significantly outweigh the extra costs arising from the new
requirements."

If they spent half as much money on an anti-smoking campaign.....!

I have countered this, using figures from this RoSPA document:

http://www.rospa.com/factsheets/pdfs/electricity.pdf

Essentially by a process of simple statistical analysis from the
authoritative figures available from RoSPA Nick Raynsford is happy to
be saving more lives and injuries than are being lost or incurred from
casualties incurred from electrical infrastructure (not appliances,
which are not covered by the new regs).

I'm awaiting a further reply. Watch this space.

PoP

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:52:18 +0100, PoP
wrote:

On 4 Oct 2003 14:44:35 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

How many lives will these new regulations save?

According to the horses mouth - Nick Raynsford MP who is the minister
in charge of this shoddy legislation - his following response was
returned - I have a copy of the official letter from him to me. I
quote his words verbatim:

"We estimate the new requirements should reduce the number of deaths
by about 8 per year, injuries by about 550 per year and fires by about
1500 per year in England and Wales. These are reductions of up to 30%
over the current rates and the savings from these reductions
significantly outweigh the extra costs arising from the new
requirements."

If they spent half as much money on an anti-smoking campaign.....!

I have countered this, using figures from this RoSPA document:

http://www.rospa.com/factsheets/pdfs/electricity.pdf

Essentially by a process of simple statistical analysis from the
authoritative figures available from RoSPA Nick Raynsford is happy to
be saving more lives and injuries than are being lost or incurred from
casualties incurred from electrical infrastructure (not appliances,
which are not covered by the new regs).

I'm awaiting a further reply. Watch this space.

He needs to arrange for somebody to write the next form letter for
him..... This is part of the standard response. In his reply to
me, Raynsford completely ducked some very pertinent issues that I
wrote to John Redwood about and asked to be forwarded to him..


PoP

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:14:09 +0000, Steve
wrote:

PoP wrote:

The bit I do not like about these new regulations (and which I
continue to badger government about) is the notion that you have to be
NICEIC registered in order to prove you can write certificates. I'm
going to college in the new year to do the C&G2391 course which will
provide me with the knowledge to perform the tests. From that (and
using the approved test equipment) I could most likely write valid
certificates. But those certificates would be meaningless unless I
were an NICEIC member.

I'm just spoiling for a fight, since I am a chartered electrical
engineer, and a member of the bloody IEE. Am I competent ?

Steve

Nope. You don't have the right union card.

I ceased contributing to IEE membership some years ago because of the
lack of value.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:57:55 +0100, Peter Saxton
wrote:

why is bartering VAT fraud?

As I understand it you need to be careful with respect to offering
discounts where VAT is part of the deal. Customs and Excise can
(AFAIK) require you to pay them the original amount of VAT, regardless
of the price you sold services for, if they suspect that they are
being diddled.

Example: You normally sell a service at £100. VAT man gets the extra
£17.50 for each sale. You do a job for a mate at half price. VAT man
might decide that you still owe him £17.50 - an effective rate of 35%!

I think it would be rare to have this forced upon you, but I'm sure I
read somewhere that if the VAT man thinks you are diddling him out of
money he would otherwise have expected to earn ('earn' being an
emotive word in this context!) then you might be required to hand over
the dosh anyway.

I suppose one situation where this might be applied is if you did a
cash-in-hand job and effectively got paid nothing as far as the
authorities were concerned. If you were stupid enough to leave a paper
trail behind (for example a certification for electrical work) then
the authorities can - and most probably would - treat the affair as if
you had received the money. Only thing is, if you got caught in one of
those situations then you'd be taking on the might of the authorities
who would - probably quite reasonably - assume that you are involved
in large scale tax evasion.

Like so many tax laws it all depends on circumstances.

PoP

In article ,
PoP writes:
On 4 Oct 2003 14:44:35 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

How many lives will these new regulations save?

According to the horses mouth - Nick Raynsford MP who is the minister
in charge of this shoddy legislation - his following response was
returned - I have a copy of the official letter from him to me. I
quote his words verbatim:

"We estimate the new requirements should reduce the number of deaths
by about 8 per year, injuries by about 550 per year and fires by about
1500 per year in England and Wales. These are reductions of up to 30%
over the current rates and the savings from these reductions
significantly outweigh the extra costs arising from the new
requirements."

They made a big mistake in the calculations though -- they included
all the incidents due to appliances (which is most of them), not just
those due to the electrical installation. If you use the right figures,
the lives saved per year is less than one. I don't know where the 30%
comes from -- the government's Regulatory Impact Assessment of the
proposed legislation calculated a drop of 20% in deaths and 10% in
injuries (or was it the other way round, I forget now).
Oh, hang on -- got it -- if you add those two numbers togther, you get
30% -- that's on a par with the quality of the rest of the technical
analysis, sadly.

--
Andrew Gabriel
Consultant Software Engineer

PoP wrote:

The bit I do not like about these new regulations (and which I
continue to badger government about) is the notion that you have to be
NICEIC registered in order to prove you can write certificates. I'm
going to college in the new year to do the C&G2391 course which will
provide me with the knowledge to perform the tests. From that (and
using the approved test equipment) I could most likely write valid
certificates. But those certificates would be meaningless unless I
were an NICEIC member.

I'm just spoiling for a fight, since I am a chartered electrical
engineer, and a member of the bloody IEE. Am I competent ?

Steve

In article , AlanG
wrote:
It cannot be enforced except when a house changes hands and the
seller is going to have to shell out for a gas safety
certificate and an elecrical safety certificate.

A requirement for this would make sense: it would pick up the
fact that the lighting had not been rewired since the 1920's and
was now lethal; the current proposals do nothing about existing
substandard installations.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article , Orange
wrote:
The country under this fascist dictatorial regime is now
becoming well beyond a joke.

In fairness, as discussed a while back, what is being proposed
here has been the status quo in Australia for ages. In the USA,
land of the free, in most states you cannot submit the simplest
structural calculations to your local BI unless they are stamped
by a PE (Professional Engineer), yet when I was a BCO there were
very many people with no formal qualifications who were perfectly
able to produce calcs for loft conversions, through rooms etc.
But just because other countries do certain things doesn't make
them sensible

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article , Derek
wrote:
1 year later got a Corgi man in, he came into the front room
and said "You can't have an open gas fire in a room with a
ceiling fan"

Uh? I can see why you can't have an extractor fan and gas fire
but a ceiling fan only stirs up the air in the room, without
changing anything. Any gas experts care to comment?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Dave Plowman wrote:
Suppose a neighbour decides on some DIY gas work, and hasn't a clue about
how to do it correctly. And blows up your house. Or doesn't follow
plumbing regs and poisons your water. Or takes a load bearing wall down
which effects the integrity of your structure?

Or perhaps likes noisy parties every night? Or wants to run a brothel?

All these with in the confines of his own house, and perfectly ok in your
ideal world where the state leaves everyone to do their own thing
regardless.


So I sue his arse off. No state intervention or rules required. Does
his activity materially affect my life in my home ? Yes ? Pay me.

Steve

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:39:07 +0000, Steve
wrote:

It has definite value to me, just apparently not doing a bloody wiring
job at home !

No problem there - you can do your own wiring at home. But you will
have to call in the local council to provide you with a certificate to
prove that you have done the job properly.....

PoP

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:11:12 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

He needs to arrange for somebody to write the next form letter for
him..... This is part of the standard response. In his reply to
me, Raynsford completely ducked some very pertinent issues that I
wrote to John Redwood about and asked to be forwarded to him..

Same here. I have followed up with a reply where I have kept very
specifically to fact, asking for answers from Nick Raynsford. I have
also asked Nick Raynsford to get out from behind his desk and do some
site visits with me to find out what the real world is about.

I expect to receive the same sort of hogwash back.

PoP

"Steve" wrote in message
.. .

I'm just spoiling for a fight, since I am a chartered electrical
engineer, and a member of the bloody IEE. Am I competent ?

Steve


I suppose, Steve, that it boild down to; Is competency in a piece of card or
a piece of paper ... or is it in the individual? From my experience, a
qualification might be a good start, but it is in the maintenance of
knowledge and capability that the real competency exists. I've met some
Qualified electricians that couldn't understand why a 12V downlighter that
was fitted 6 meters from the transformer was running with as much light as
the glow from the end of a cigarette, or that had to phone their supervisors
to ask how many double sockets they could put on a ring and their
supervisors had to look it up in a book. I beleive it's down to how much
effort the individual puts in to maintaining and improving his own knowledge
that really signifies competency.

Andy Hall wrote:

Nope. You don't have the right union card.

I ceased contributing to IEE membership some years ago because of the
lack of value.


It has definite value to me, just apparently not doing a bloody wiring
job at home !

Steve

Dave Plowman wrote:
Suppose a neighbour decides on some DIY gas work, and hasn't a clue
about
how to do it correctly. And blows up your house. Or doesn't follow
plumbing regs and poisons your water. Or takes a load bearing wall down
which effects the integrity of your structure?

Or perhaps likes noisy parties every night? Or wants to run a brothel?

All these with in the confines of his own house, and perfectly ok in
your
ideal world where the state leaves everyone to do their own thing
regardless.



"Steve" wrote
So I sue his arse off. No state intervention or rules required. Does
his activity materially affect my life in my home ? Yes ? Pay me.

Sue him for what, exactly?

"Steve" wrote
So I sue his arse off. No state intervention or rules required. Does
his activity materially affect my life in my home ? Yes ? Pay me.

Tim wrote:
Sue him for what, exactly?


"Steve" wrote
Infirnging my right to peace and freedom, unencumbered by the turkey
next door.

And what value do you think should be placed on that? Couple of shillings &
threppence??

Tim wrote:


"Steve" wrote

So I sue his arse off. No state intervention or rules required. Does
his activity materially affect my life in my home ? Yes ? Pay me.


Sue him for what, exactly?

Infirnging my right to peace and freedom, unencumbered by the turkey
next door.

Steve

In article ,
Steve wrote:
So I sue his arse off. No state intervention or rules required. Does
his activity materially affect my life in my home ? Yes ? Pay me.


Sue him for what, exactly?

Infirnging my right to peace and freedom, unencumbered by the turkey
next door.

Think I'd rather put up with some government interference which has no
chance of being rigorously enforced rather than resort to suing someone -
where only the lawyers would win.


--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In uk.politics.misc on Sat, 4 Oct 2003 at 12:49:44, derek wrote :

1 year later got a Corgi man in, he came into the front room and said
"You can't have an open gas fire in a room with a ceiling fan" I said
we don't use them both at the same time the fan is to cool us down the
fire is to make us warm" and even if we did the fan has no effect on
the fire. Doesn't matter he said It's against the rules, I can't
service the fire.

And they haven't started yet!

One of the things bothering me is that I'll have to have all these
petty non- compliances resolved before I can sell the house.

I guess you need to find a 'cowboy' who'll ignore such bureaucratic
rules, or DIY again.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:15:17 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

A requirement for this would make sense: it would pick up the
fact that the lighting had not been rewired since the 1920's and
was now lethal; the current proposals do nothing about existing
substandard installations.

That would certainly be a good idea - though I can't help feeling it
might not be a vote winner for the party that introduced that rule.

Possibly only a few votes at stake, however some MPs will have
constituencies which have many older properties - and if you test to
the 16th edition wiring standard then it might fail earlier standards,
even though those standards do not necessarily present a hazard.

However, Labour have certainly sacrificed a lot of good feeling by
introducing this lousy scheme.

PoP

Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Derek
wrote:
1 year later got a Corgi man in, he came into the front room
and said "You can't have an open gas fire in a room with a
ceiling fan"

Uh? I can see why you can't have an extractor fan and gas fire
but a ceiling fan only stirs up the air in the room, without
changing anything. Any gas experts care to comment?


This is a new one on me. It is certinaly not in GSIUR 1998 or AFAIK any
BS normative document.

In fact you could have an extractor in the room (implausible) or in an
adjoining open plan kitchen (plausible) with the open flue fire. However
the likelihood is that aditional permanent ventilation would have to be
provided.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

In uk.d-i-y Ed Sirett wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:

1 year later got a Corgi man in, he came into the front room
and said "You can't have an open gas fire in a room with a
ceiling fan"

Uh? I can see why you can't have an extractor fan and gas fire
but a ceiling fan only stirs up the air in the room, without
changing anything. Any gas experts care to comment?


This is a new one on me. It is certinaly not in GSIUR 1998 or AFAIK any
BS normative document.

All of which points to a thickie CORGI misunderstanding something he
thought he heard someone once say down the depot, turning "need to be
watch the ventilation if there's a fan in the room", where "the fan"
referred in its context (a polysyllabic word and abstract concept
beyond the reach of our jobsworth) to an *extractor* fan. This mention
of an [extractor] fan has been transmogrified in the simple neural
circuitry of our man who can't wait for proper gold braid on his lapels
into "fans bad". After all, if he overinterprets the reach of some sacred
Regs he's never actually read, nor read a rational guide to, what's the
effect? More work for him, and naff-all chance of being corrected. Whereas
if he errs on the wrong side, and lets something go which is potentially
unsafe (and in the context of ambulance-chasing, the standard for
"potentially unsafe" need mean only "superficially similar to a situiation
which might increase a marginal risk by another small margin"), his
precious behind is in danger of a slap.

This kind of incentive to over-strict application of regulations, and folk
extension of their scope and meaning, is a peril which seems very rarely
addressed by "self-certifying" trade body regulation schemes. Self-regulation
has a natural bound where the cost of over-compliance lies with those
being regulated; where such costs fall on the *customers* of those
responsible for interpreting the regs "on the ground", the dangers of
creating inappropriate incentives are considerable. Any carry-over to
the forthcoming role of the NICEIC for domestic electrical installation
is left to the imagination (which rules out most of the junior ministers,
then ;-)

Stefek

In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:
In fact you could have an extractor in the room (implausible) or in an
adjoining open plan kitchen (plausible) with the open flue fire. However
the likelihood is that aditional permanent ventilation would have to be
provided.

Surely if you use a powerful enough extractor fan with an open flue fire,
it will draw the exhaust gasses into the room?

Exactly this happened to a pal who had a 'normal' open 'coal' fire and a
kitchen with breakfast bar through to the living area after he fitted a
powerful fan in the kitchen. The idea was to stop kitchen smells reaching
the living area, when what happened was smoke in the kitchen.

--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
wrote:
This kind of incentive to over-strict application of regulations, and
folk extension of their scope and meaning, is a peril which seems very
rarely addressed by "self-certifying" trade body regulation schemes.
Self-regulation has a natural bound where the cost of over-compliance
lies with those being regulated; where such costs fall on the
*customers* of those responsible for interpreting the regs "on the
ground", the dangers of creating inappropriate incentives are
considerable. Any carry-over to the forthcoming role of the NICEIC for
domestic electrical installation is left to the imagination (which rules
out most of the junior ministers, then ;-)

My neighbour, a widow, was told most emphatically by the chap that
services her water heater - I assume CORGI registered - that her electric
cooker could only be replaced by a registered tradesman. This *might* be
the case with a gas one, so he simply transferred this rule to include all
cookers. And she believes him rather than me. ;-)

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y Ed Sirett wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:

1 year later got a Corgi man in, he came into the front room
and said "You can't have an open gas fire in a room with a
ceiling fan"

Uh? I can see why you can't have an extractor fan and gas fire
but a ceiling fan only stirs up the air in the room, without
changing anything. Any gas experts care to comment?


This is a new one on me. It is certinaly not in GSIUR 1998 or AFAIK any
BS normative document.

All of which points to a thickie CORGI misunderstanding something he
thought he heard someone once say down the depot, turning "need to be
watch the ventilation if there's a fan in the room", where "the fan"
referred in its context (a polysyllabic word and abstract concept
beyond the reach of our jobsworth) to an *extractor* fan. This mention
of an [extractor] fan has been transmogrified in the simple neural
circuitry of our man who can't wait for proper gold braid on his lapels
into "fans bad". After all, if he overinterprets the reach of some sacred
Regs he's never actually read, nor read a rational guide to, what's the
effect? More work for him, and naff-all chance of being corrected. Whereas
if he errs on the wrong side, and lets something go which is potentially
unsafe (and in the context of ambulance-chasing, the standard for
"potentially unsafe" need mean only "superficially similar to a situiation
which might increase a marginal risk by another small margin"), his
precious behind is in danger of a slap.

This kind of incentive to over-strict application of regulations, and folk
extension of their scope and meaning, is a peril which seems very rarely
addressed by "self-certifying" trade body regulation schemes.
Self-regulation
has a natural bound where the cost of over-compliance lies with those
being regulated; where such costs fall on the *customers* of those
responsible for interpreting the regs "on the ground", the dangers of
creating inappropriate incentives are considerable. Any carry-over to
the forthcoming role of the NICEIC for domestic electrical installation
is left to the imagination (which rules out most of the junior ministers,
then ;-)
During the summer I fitted a ceiling fan in the bedroom, but because of the
ceiling height it is installed below the recommended minimum level, I'm six
foot tall and it whirls away about eight inches above my head!.

Looking at the instruction/installation booklet it states.. "Do not use
ceiling fans and open gas heating appliances at the same time in the same
room".. it doesn't say they shouldn't be fitted.


Stefek

wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y Ed Sirett wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:

1 year later got a Corgi man in, he came into the front room
and said "You can't have an open gas fire in a room with a
ceiling fan"

Uh? I can see why you can't have an extractor fan and gas fire
but a ceiling fan only stirs up the air in the room, without
changing anything. Any gas experts care to comment?


This is a new one on me. It is certinaly not in GSIUR 1998 or AFAIK any
BS normative document.

All of which points to a thickie CORGI misunderstanding something he
thought he heard someone once say down the depot, turning "need to be
watch the ventilation if there's a fan in the room", where "the fan"
referred in its context (a polysyllabic word and abstract concept
beyond the reach of our jobsworth) to an *extractor* fan. This mention
of an [extractor] fan has been transmogrified in the simple neural
circuitry of our man who can't wait for proper gold braid on his lapels
into "fans bad". After all, if he overinterprets the reach of some sacred
Regs he's never actually read, nor read a rational guide to, what's the
effect? More work for him, and naff-all chance of being corrected. Whereas
if he errs on the wrong side, and lets something go which is potentially
unsafe (and in the context of ambulance-chasing, the standard for
"potentially unsafe" need mean only "superficially similar to a situiation
which might increase a marginal risk by another small margin"), his
precious behind is in danger of a slap.

This kind of incentive to over-strict application of regulations, and folk
extension of their scope and meaning, is a peril which seems very rarely
addressed by "self-certifying" trade body regulation schemes.
Self-regulation
has a natural bound where the cost of over-compliance lies with those
being regulated; where such costs fall on the *customers* of those
responsible for interpreting the regs "on the ground", the dangers of
creating inappropriate incentives are considerable. Any carry-over to
the forthcoming role of the NICEIC for domestic electrical installation
is left to the imagination (which rules out most of the junior ministers,
then ;-)

During the summer I fitted a ceiling fan in the bedroom, but because of the
ceiling height it is installed below the recommended minimum level, I'm six
foot tall and it whirls away about eight inches above my head!.

Looking at the instruction/installation booklet it states.. "Do not use
ceiling fans and open gas heating appliances at the same time in the same
room".. it doesn't say they shouldn't be fitted.



Stefek

Still, mustn't grumble. Living in a nanny state has its advantages.

PoP

Only for members of the 'inner party' if I remember my Orwell correctly.