On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:27:46 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:


That's all covered by Part P in the home and it doesn't come
under the list of exemptions in Table 1. I did mention in my
original response during the consultation period that Part P
should only cover Low Voltage (which is standard mains voltage),
but my comments were ignored and it also encompasses all Extra
Low Voltage, i.e. data/telecoms/security/aerials/etc. and none
of these are listed in the exclusions from needing an accredited
installer or a building notice. So you might want to make sure
you get your structured Cat5 and phone extentions installed
before year end ;-)

Blimey, Part P is dead before it's been launched! It is unenforceable,
imcompetant governance, and going to be observed in the breach.


--
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 article ,
"James" writes:

Do the traditional operators - such as BT - have membership of an
appropriate approved body? On second thoughts this is a silly question - to
meet the requirements only one of their thousands of employees needs to be a
member for the organisation as a whole to qualify.

Doesn't answer your question, but when I did 16th Edition
regs, there were a couple of BT engineers on the course.
Actually, only about half the attendees were electricians;
the others were telecom engingeers (not just BT), alarm
installers, heating installers, someone working on street
lamps, etc. The irony was that most of the electricians
were having a hard time following it, whereas all the
other trades were following along with no difficulty
at all. I don't actually know who passed and who didn't,
although a couple of the electricians did comment this
was not their first attempt. The same happened on the PAT
Testing course -- it was the electricions who didn't know
the difference between milliohms and megohms, something
which the course teacher teased them about several times,
and commented that this was normally the case whenever he
tought the course.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On 30 Nov 2004 01:24:24 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
"James" writes:

Do the traditional operators - such as BT - have membership of an
appropriate approved body? On second thoughts this is a silly question - to
meet the requirements only one of their thousands of employees needs to be a
member for the organisation as a whole to qualify.

Doesn't answer your question, but when I did 16th Edition
regs, there were a couple of BT engineers on the course.
Actually, only about half the attendees were electricians;
the others were telecom engingeers (not just BT), alarm
installers, heating installers, someone working on street
lamps, etc. The irony was that most of the electricians
were having a hard time following it, whereas all the
other trades were following along with no difficulty
at all. I don't actually know who passed and who didn't,
although a couple of the electricians did comment this
was not their first attempt. The same happened on the PAT
Testing course -- it was the electricions who didn't know
the difference between milliohms and megohms, something
which the course teacher teased them about several times,
and commented that this was normally the case whenever he
tought the course.


This is concerning but not surprising. If you're into one of these
other trades, you have to know how to put a few more wires in the
right place.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:08:26 +0000, "Ed Sirett" wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:31:52 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:





With buyers packs and pre sale surveying etc. that is around or planned, I
*suspect* you won't be able to sell the property.

Surveyors don't usually test electrics now, I don't see how anything will change.

In article .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:

What I think will happen is that two housing markets will
develop - a fully certified & in A1 condition. Which the
younger, better and well refurbished houses will tend to belong
to. The less informed, the wealthier and the less adventurous
(in any combination) will buy these.

The other market will be for those who have to, wish to or want
to buy 'uncertified' property.
Which might be anything from a house with needs a rewire to one
which need rebuilding.

IOW just like the secondhand car market - A1 Approved from a
franchise dealer with price to match, or auction/small ads buyer
beware. And as with cars you may find that the extra cost of
compliance is recovered when you sell: what price a BMW "serviced
by a mate" compared with FSH?

--
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

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:14:14 +0000, "Ed Sirett"
strung together this:

Blimey, Part P is dead before it's been launched!

Yep, thankfully. I've just speaking to my Dad, (plumbing and haeting
services etc..), and without any prompting he said exactly the same as
me, by the time you've finished arsing around you'd be better off on
the dole. The cowboys aren't going to stop because the price diference
between them and a 'pro' will be even greater now, the same happened
with CORGI, sort of, but not to the same extent of ****edupedness as
Part P.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Hi

Can anyone tell me where to find out exactly what jobs will need regs
approval after 1/1/05? I've not installed any new circuits yet, but have
greatly extended my ground floor ring main (from 3 sockets to 19 sockets,
still within the floor area regulation). Apart from the fact that I've not
had to fiddle with the CU, how does this differ from installing a new
circuit in the eyes of the regulators? I plan to do something similar with
the upstairs circuit next uear... What about the low-voltage halogen spots
in the lounge? And the second switch for the hall light? And how will any
inspector know what I did in '04 and what I did in '05?

Cheers

Tom





"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:

What I think will happen is that two housing markets will
develop - a fully certified & in A1 condition. Which the
younger, better and well refurbished houses will tend to belong
to. The less informed, the wealthier and the less adventurous
(in any combination) will buy these.

The other market will be for those who have to, wish to or want
to buy 'uncertified' property.
Which might be anything from a house with needs a rewire to one
which need rebuilding.

IOW just like the secondhand car market - A1 Approved from a
franchise dealer with price to match, or auction/small ads buyer
beware. And as with cars you may find that the extra cost of
compliance is recovered when you sell: what price a BMW "serviced
by a mate" compared with FSH?

--
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

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:31:52 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:
The other market will be for those who have to, wish to or want to buy
'uncertified' property.
Which might be anything from a house with needs a rewire to one which need
rebuilding.



But the irony is that a house with crumbling 50 year wiring which has not
been touched requires no certification, whereas if the same house is
competently DIY rewired without BCO approval it is regarded by the
designers of Part P as dangerous.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 27/11/2004

"Tom W" wrote in message
...
Hi

Can anyone tell me where to find out exactly what jobs will need regs
approval after 1/1/05? I've not installed any new circuits yet, but have
greatly extended my ground floor ring main (from 3 sockets to 19 sockets,
still within the floor area regulation). Apart from the fact that I've not
had to fiddle with the CU, how does this differ from installing a new
circuit in the eyes of the regulators? I plan to do something similar with
the upstairs circuit next uear... What about the low-voltage halogen spots
in the lounge? And the second switch for the hall light? And how will any
inspector know what I did in '04 and what I did in '05?

Cheers

Tom

snipped

They won't know what's changed unless, blessings forbid, something drastic
happens or you come sell the house in the future. The electrics, as well as
all other services to the building, will need checking during the survey
that the seller has to have done when the other new regs come to fruition.
It is also being advised that, when the property comes up for sale or
transfer, that the vendor has one full survey done on the property, and
which will cover all changes to shape, layout and extension, and internal
services supplied with the property.

This isn't just a change to the wiring requirements and the way these done.
It's a change to the whole way that the properties are sold on to others.
Instead of each individual would be buyer having their own survey done
before an offer is made, the seller will have to have a full structural and
plan layout survey of the property to hand to the buyer, to say that the
house is and has been done to full safety and health standards.

These only look like small changes to each individual service, but it is
actually a blanket change covering all aspects of the building and supply
industries.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:36:03 -0000, "Tom W"
wrote:

Hi

Can anyone tell me where to find out exactly what jobs will need regs
approval after 1/1/05?

You can look at the Statutory Instrument, or the Approved Document on
the ODPM web site.

I've not installed any new circuits yet, but have
greatly extended my ground floor ring main (from 3 sockets to 19 sockets,
still within the floor area regulation). Apart from the fact that I've not
had to fiddle with the CU, how does this differ from installing a new
circuit in the eyes of the regulators?

This will not be an exempted work. You are allowed to add a spur or
replace a faulty cable or wiring accessories and be exempt but that's
about it.

You can still do the work yourself but then you have to have it
inspected by informing the building control department at the local
authority,


I plan to do something similar with
the upstairs circuit next uear... What about the low-voltage halogen spots
in the lounge?

Even extra low voltage isn't exempted. AFAICS, there is nothing that
even excludes a doorbell.

And the second switch for the hall light? And how will any
inspector know what I did in '04 and what I did in '05?

He won't.


Cheers

Tom



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , fred
writes
One point not often made is that you do not need to be a qualified
Electrician to register with one of the part p schemes. Kitchen fitters
plumbers etc will be allowed into the fold as long as they hand over the wad
of cash and go on one of the courses.


Which of course makes a complete mockery of the whole business.
"Fly by Night Kitchens Ltd" just get _one_ of their monkeys^H fitters
off an appropriate course, join NICEIC, and hey presto the cowboys in
the field continue as usual, with their diagonal wiring routes and
choc-blocks buried in plaster style workmanship.

Must stop before uncontrolled rant mode sets in


--
Steve

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:13:13 +0000, Tony Bryer wrote:

In article .uk,
Ed Sirett wrote:



IOW just like the secondhand car market - A1 Approved from a
franchise dealer with price to match, or auction/small ads buyer
beware. And as with cars you may find that the extra cost of
compliance is recovered when you sell: what price a BMW "serviced
by a mate" compared with FSH?

Agreed. Except that houses are refurbished from time to time which cars
generally aren't.

--
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

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:27 +0000, Lurch wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:14:14 +0000, "Ed Sirett"
strung together this:

Blimey, Part P is dead before it's been launched!

Yep, thankfully. I've just speaking to my Dad, (plumbing and haeting
services etc..), and without any prompting he said exactly the same as
me, by the time you've finished arsing around you'd be better off on
the dole. The cowboys aren't going to stop because the price diference
between them and a 'pro' will be even greater now, the same happened
with CORGI, sort of, but not to the same extent of ****edupedness as
Part P.

Except unregistered gas installers can and are prosecuted regularly.
AISI the worst offence (with part P) will be that the house won't have
the right paperwork.

--
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 article , Steven Briggs
wrote:
Which of course makes a complete mockery of the whole
business. "Fly by Night Kitchens Ltd" just get _one_ of their
monkeys^H fitters off an appropriate course, join NICEIC, and
hey presto the cowboys in the field continue as usual, with
their diagonal wiring routes and choc-blocks buried in
plaster style workmanship.

But AIUI if a registered person does work to which Part P
applies he has to give the customer a certificate confirming
that it has been done correctly and tested. If it then comes out
that the work is as you describe the person is in deep trouble -
more likely through being sued than Part P enforcement by the LA
admittedly.

--
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

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:08:08 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Steven Briggs
wrote:
Which of course makes a complete mockery of the whole
business. "Fly by Night Kitchens Ltd" just get _one_ of their
monkeys^H fitters off an appropriate course, join NICEIC, and
hey presto the cowboys in the field continue as usual, with
their diagonal wiring routes and choc-blocks buried in
plaster style workmanship.

But AIUI if a registered person does work to which Part P
applies he has to give the customer a certificate confirming
that it has been done correctly and tested. If it then comes out
that the work is as you describe the person is in deep trouble -
more likely through being sued than Part P enforcement by the LA
admittedly.

True, but how is it detected?

I can only see a small numer of ways:

- The work is part of a larger thing where the BCO is involved for
inspection and happens to notice something awry and gets it checked.

- Something bad happens like a fire. We already know that the stats
on that indicate that it's very improbable on a fixed wiring issue.
Since there's nothing covering old failing wiring, part P doesn't help
with this.

- NICEIC or equivalent body does an inspection. AIUI, the notion is
for that to be similar to CORGI and about two customers per member a
year. If the electrician does, say, 100 jobs a year then this is a 2%
sample rate. Not very useful.

- Property is sold and buyer's solicitor/surveyor picks it up. I
think that this is the most likely.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:08:08 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

snipped

- Property is sold and buyer's solicitor/surveyor picks it up. I
think that this is the most likely.

.andy


The part above is the one that is going to bring everything into line. It
is soon coming that the seller has the house the surveyed before a sale, not
the buyers. So in a time when the house is going up for sale, the seller
needs the new paperwork to say the house is up to sellable condition, which
includes the safety of all appliances and permanent fixtures that are being
sold with house.

I do wish people wouldn't just pick the one new part of one small
requirement, but actually looks at the new parts of all the new requirements
that are springing up in all the trades conditions of work act. They are
all working together on this you know. It's not just "Part P" of the small
changes, it's a blanket coverage of all the trades. Read more about this
rest of the changes that are taking place shortly before going on about this
silly little Part P.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
True, but how is it detected?

I can only see a small numer of ways:

One mo there's some fallout over the work and the first thing the
customer's solicitor advises is to get an independent report. Which
will either point up no Part P certificate or one issued for work
that is blatantly nonconforming.

--
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

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:27 +0000, Lurch wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:14:14 +0000, "Ed Sirett"
strung together this:

Blimey, Part P is dead before it's been launched!

Yep, thankfully. I've just speaking to my Dad, (plumbing and haeting
services etc..), and without any prompting he said exactly the same as
me, by the time you've finished arsing around you'd be better off on
the dole. The cowboys aren't going to stop because the price diference
between them and a 'pro' will be even greater now, the same happened
with CORGI, sort of, but not to the same extent of ****edupedness as
Part P.

Except unregistered gas installers can and are prosecuted regularly.
AISI the worst offence (with part P) will be that the house won't have
the right paperwork.

But if no electrical work has been carried out on the house, or only
electrical work that is exempt from part P - then no paperwork is required.
How can a buyer (or even a surveyor) possibly know that that a socket above
a kitchen worktop was installed pre or post 1.1.2005 ???? The whole thing is
a nonsense.

Kev

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:28:02 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:08:08 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

snipped

- Property is sold and buyer's solicitor/surveyor picks it up. I
think that this is the most likely.

.andy


The part above is the one that is going to bring everything into line. It
is soon coming that the seller has the house the surveyed before a sale, not
the buyers. So in a time when the house is going up for sale, the seller
needs the new paperwork to say the house is up to sellable condition, which
includes the safety of all appliances and permanent fixtures that are being
sold with house.


This is another complete nonsense. Who in their right mind would
rely solely on information provided by the vendor or somebody
appointed by him? There is a fundamental conflict of interest with
this, no matter how much is said about professional integrity etc.
I am sure that some unscrupulous estate agents will have their tame
"professionals" lined up to provide information that while perhaps not
a direct lie will have getouts or be economical on what is said to
give the barest minimum of information.

In the end, buyers, if they want to have reasonable certainty will
still want to have their own surveys so this only adds to cost and
creates jobs for the boys.



I do wish people wouldn't just pick the one new part of one small
requirement, but actually looks at the new parts of all the new requirements
that are springing up in all the trades conditions of work act. They are
all working together on this you know. It's not just "Part P" of the small
changes, it's a blanket coverage of all the trades. Read more about this
rest of the changes that are taking place shortly before going on about this
silly little Part P.


If you believe that, you would believe anything. Have you been taking
Prescott classes or something.

All of these new self certification schemes are basically the same
thing. They appear to be providing the consumer with some protection
and cost the taxpayer quite a lot of money to create. However, it's
nothing like the money required to do a proper job with supervision,
so the government effectively outsource this to the trade
associations. However, the same cost issue applies. The money
simply isn't there to do a complete inspection job in all cases.
Another effect of the outsourcing is that the opportunity for this to
be joined up is lost. Do you imagine that FENSA will talk to NICEIC
on a detailed level? Of course not.

The basic, core building regulations and methods of operating them
through BCOs make a lot of sense, but the self certification schemes
certainly do not if the objective is as you describe. It simply won't
work.

As the Americans would say, the whole thing is one big circle jerk.
I hope that the government participants will get to eat the soggy
biscuit before too long.......



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:28:02 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:08:08 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

snipped

- Property is sold and buyer's solicitor/surveyor picks it up. I
think that this is the most likely.

.andy


The part above is the one that is going to bring everything into line.
It
is soon coming that the seller has the house the surveyed before a sale,
not
the buyers. So in a time when the house is going up for sale, the seller
needs the new paperwork to say the house is up to sellable condition,
which
includes the safety of all appliances and permanent fixtures that are
being
sold with house.


This is another complete nonsense. Who in their right mind would
rely solely on information provided by the vendor or somebody
appointed by him? There is a fundamental conflict of interest with
this, no matter how much is said about professional integrity etc.
I am sure that some unscrupulous estate agents will have their tame
"professionals" lined up to provide information that while perhaps not
a direct lie will have getouts or be economical on what is said to
give the barest minimum of information.

In the end, buyers, if they want to have reasonable certainty will
still want to have their own surveys so this only adds to cost and
creates jobs for the boys.


It is a blanket survey for all property sales across the UK, and must be
done by the vendor themselves unless they allow an agent on their behalf to
appoint one. It is set in stone what things are tested and checked, not
just by a tame surveyor but, by a fully qualified surveyor who just now is
wasted on fifteen minute trips to a house to check if it has a roof, doors
and windows. I do think that most of these "fully qualified" people will
have to be imported to start with because, as far as I've seen, the people
doing surveys here just now are no more qualified than a guy sweeping
streets.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:27:40 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:




It is a blanket survey for all property sales across the UK, and must be
done by the vendor themselves unless they allow an agent on their behalf to
appoint one. It is set in stone what things are tested and checked, not
just by a tame surveyor but, by a fully qualified surveyor who just now is
wasted on fifteen minute trips to a house to check if it has a roof, doors
and windows. I do think that most of these "fully qualified" people will
have to be imported to start with because, as far as I've seen, the people
doing surveys here just now are no more qualified than a guy sweeping
streets.



... and who is going to police these "fully qualified surveyors" to
make sure that they are honest and competent?

Where is the check and balance to protect the buyer in all of this?

As a buyer, I may look at a report of this nature, but as no more than
a data point because it has been arranged and paid for by the seller.
That notion is fundamentally broken in terms of the validity for the
buyer.

Sorry, but I don't buy into this utopian nonsense.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:51:40 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:





Eventually, yes. All the trades will be intermingled between countries, and
things will rub off from all types of attitudes as this becomes the norm'.
This government wants and needs the "Auf Wedersien Pet" attitude back in the
community if it is to survive through two more elections as they plan too.
The more they can make harmonisation between the EU member states, the
better for them to produce trade in workers to all the new developing
countries that are proposing to join. It is seen now that these countries
currently have labour but not skilled labour, so they will need the skills
from other members to bring them into line with the EU administration
requirements.

The member countries currently have legislations controlling who and how the
skilled work is done, so is now becoming part of UK legislation. It is
reckoned as the normal practice when the skills are introduced from other
member states, so if you're not registered as being competent doing these
types of jobs, you don't get the chance to tender for work in other places.


I know how implementation in national legislation of EU policies and
directives is *supposed* to work, but the reality is that it doesn't
and is not likely to with the current construct.

You can choose virtually any topic and compare the legislation in
different countries and you will discover that the variation of the
content of it is substantial. After that comes the method of
implementation and policing and finally what happens on the ground.
The different styles and cultures make sure of that.

The U.S. hasn't achieved the kind of uniformity that you describe and
they have a federal system and have has a considerably longer period
to make it happen had they wanted to do so.

Sorry, but the situation you describe is not really wanted by people
if they think that it will interfere with their lives. If they live
in an environment where the law is more a matter of policy then they
probably don't care. This is all stuff promoted by those seeking to
gain power over others because they are unable to do a proper day's
work.

It's a dream, and rather a wet one.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Sorry, but the situation you describe is not really wanted by people
if they think that it will interfere with their lives. If they live
in an environment where the law is more a matter of policy then they
probably don't care.


This is all stuff promoted by those seeking to
gain power over others because they are unable to do a proper day's
work.

And "thats" the real truth;(



It's a dream, and rather a wet one.

Those who can do, do, those who can't govern....

--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:27:40 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:



It is a blanket survey for all property sales across the UK, and must be
done by the vendor themselves unless they allow an agent on their behalf to
appoint one. It is set in stone what things are tested and checked, not
just by a tame surveyor but, by a fully qualified surveyor who just now is
wasted on fifteen minute trips to a house to check if it has a roof, doors
and windows. I do think that most of these "fully qualified" people will
have to be imported to start with because, as far as I've seen, the people
doing surveys here just now are no more qualified than a guy sweeping
streets.

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

--
Frank Erskine

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:27:40 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:



It is a blanket survey for all property sales across the UK, and must be
done by the vendor themselves unless they allow an agent on their behalf
to
appoint one. It is set in stone what things are tested and checked, not
just by a tame surveyor but, by a fully qualified surveyor who just now
is
wasted on fifteen minute trips to a house to check if it has a roof,
doors
and windows. I do think that most of these "fully qualified" people will
have to be imported to start with because, as far as I've seen, the
people
doing surveys here just now are no more qualified than a guy sweeping
streets.

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

Frank Erskine


You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?

ROFLMAO For a minute there I thought that you were being serious.



--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:01:38 +0000, James wrote:


"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:31:52 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:
The other market will be for those who have to, wish to or want to buy
'uncertified' property.
Which might be anything from a house with needs a rewire to one which need
rebuilding.



But the irony is that a house with crumbling 50 year wiring which has not
been touched requires no certification, whereas if the same house is
competently DIY rewired without BCO approval it is regarded by the
designers of Part P as dangerous.

This is where people with some informed understanding have an advantage
over those who might blindly expect proper documentation or it's 'bad'.

If you were buying then an evaluation of the wiring is part of what you'll
be looking for.

If you are selling then a competant diy rewire and a formal inspection
certificate will surely pass scrutiny by any solicitor.


--
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

"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

Frank Erskine


You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?


No, he means caveat emptor "let the buyer beware".
You know, as in caveo, caveas, caveat, caveamus, caveatis, caveant.
( Back to lurk mode, catching up with the thread. Carry on chaps.)

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:52:02 -0000, "Rob" wrote:


"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

Frank Erskine


You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?


No, he means caveat emptor "let the buyer beware".
You know, as in caveo, caveas, caveat, caveamus, caveatis, caveant.
( Back to lurk mode, catching up with the thread. Carry on chaps.)


Is this like in Vidi, Vici, Veni ? ;-)




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Rob" wrote in message
...

"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

Frank Erskine


You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?


No, he means caveat emptor "let the buyer beware".
You know, as in caveo, caveas, caveat, caveamus, caveatis, caveant.
( Back to lurk mode, catching up with the thread. Carry on chaps.)


Well, that's an entirely subjunctive view of course...


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Rob" wrote in message
...

"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

Frank Erskine


You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?


No, he means caveat emptor "let the buyer beware".

Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was never
my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after our second
lesson and the school never replaced him.

"Mike" wrote
| Then again Latin was never my strong point ever since my
| Latin master dropped dead after our second lesson and
| the school never replaced him.

That *is* impressive.

I only managed to make one teacher take about 6 weeks off work with
stress-related illness ;-)

Owain

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:38:09 +0000, Mike wrote:


Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was
never my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after our
second lesson and the school never replaced him.

It's a long time since I did any latin...

(the) buyer, (let him) beware.

So 3rd person.

"the buyer, let me beware" wouldn't be right. Probably need something that
went "beware when I buy" - no I haven't got a clue how to translate
that.

Timbo

"Tim S" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:38:09 +0000, Mike wrote:


Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was
never my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after our
second lesson and the school never replaced him.

It's a long time since I did any latin...

(the) buyer, (let him) beware.

So 3rd person.

"the buyer, let me beware" wouldn't be right.

"Let me, the buyer, beware" was what I was thinking of.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:25:03 +0000, Mike wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:38:09 +0000, Mike wrote:


Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was
never my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after
our second lesson and the school never replaced him.

It's a long time since I did any latin...

(the) buyer, (let him) beware.

So 3rd person.

"the buyer, let me beware" wouldn't be right.

"Let me, the buyer, beware" was what I was thinking of.

Yes - that sounds better. I did wonder if "emptor" needed a different
declension until I realised that it's missing its declension
ending altogether (emptor-is)!! I only did latin for a year - can anyone
with a "proper educashun" explain that?

Timbo

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:36:57 UTC, Tim S wrote:

Yes - that sounds better. I did wonder if "emptor" needed a different
declension until I realised that it's missing its declension
ending altogether (emptor-is)!! I only did latin for a year - can anyone
with a "proper educashun" explain that?

No, but I wonder why it isn't 'emptor caveat'....!

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

In message , Tim S
writes
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 21:25:03 +0000, Mike wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:38:09 +0000, Mike wrote:


Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was
never my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after
our second lesson and the school never replaced him.

It's a long time since I did any latin...

(the) buyer, (let him) beware.

So 3rd person.

"the buyer, let me beware" wouldn't be right.

"Let me, the buyer, beware" was what I was thinking of.

Yes - that sounds better. I did wonder if "emptor" needed a different
declension until I realised that it's missing its declension
ending altogether (emptor-is)!! I only did latin for a year - can anyone
with a "proper educashun" explain that?

Emptor is the nominative i.e. the subject of the sentence. Caveat is
third person subjunctive: 'he/she should beware'.

Obsolete, of course. In the EU, the world's most competitive trading
bloc by 2010, it is the seller who must beware. The buyer is assumed to
have the brains of a Zabriskan fontema, and to be incapable of bewaring.
--
Joe

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:02:31 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike" wrote
| Then again Latin was never my strong point ever since my
| Latin master dropped dead after our second lesson and
| the school never replaced him.

That *is* impressive.

I only managed to make one teacher take about 6 weeks off work with
stress-related illness ;-)

My woodwork teacher ("Basher" Bates) was a really nasty piece of work.
He literally threw chisels and wooden jack planes at pupils. For a
long period he was absent due to a stomach ulcer (this was,
fortunately, long before these could normally be treated almost
instantly with large doses of antibiotics), so he was absent for about
a year. His replacement was a real gentleman, who taught the use of
PVA glue rather than Basher's scotch glue from a kettle.

--
Frank Erskine

"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:27:40 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:



It is a blanket survey for all property sales across the UK, and must be
done by the vendor themselves unless they allow an agent on their behalf
to
appoint one. It is set in stone what things are tested and checked, not
just by a tame surveyor but, by a fully qualified surveyor who just now
is
wasted on fifteen minute trips to a house to check if it has a roof,
doors
and windows. I do think that most of these "fully qualified" people
will
have to be imported to start with because, as far as I've seen, the
people
doing surveys here just now are no more qualified than a guy sweeping
streets.

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

Frank Erskine


You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?

No - he means Caveat Emptor - buyer beware.

Kev

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:38:09 -0000, "Mike" wrote:


"Rob" wrote in message
...

"BigWallop" wrote in message
news

Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

Frank Erskine


You mean "Caveo Emptor"? "Buyer beware"?


No, he means caveat emptor "let the buyer beware".

Surely if he's the buyer then caveo is correct ? Then again Latin was never
my strong point ever since my Latin master dropped dead after our second
lesson and the school never replaced him.



If the writer of the original phrase is the buyer then the "-o"
ending looks correct for 1st person singular - but it is indicative
rather than subjunctive mood I think ("caveat" is subjunctive).... I
think "emptor" is OK though which is nominative case .... or is it
vocative.. actually, possibly both ... which seems to fit both
instances ....maybe... errr.... oh no!!!.... I feel a "Romans go home"
sketch coming on (a quick google and here it is:-
http://members.chello.se/hansdotter/romanes.html)

Coincidentally, my Latin master also popped his clogs mid-course and
was not replaced, but not until we'd had to suffer a lot more Latin
than just two lessons.

Time for bed.

Gary