|
|
|
RIP DIY - longish rant |
|---|
| message from Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
I've been (mostly) reading this group for over a year whilst
renovating my house and during that time have got some usefull
information from it.
However, it has struck me recently that a lot of people who post
here have an incredibly self righteous outlook, considering this is a
DIY forum. Particularly following the post on legality of electrical
wiring it was quite depressing how many of the replies took the stance
that either you "shouldn't do it without a qualification" or "you
can't legally do it without a qualification, and maybee that's OK".
Maybee It's just me getting depressed about how hard it seems to be to
do things legally without employing some semi-competent "insert trade
here" who has absolutely no interest in doing the job I want done (or
even returning a phone call usually). At the same time as not wanting
my custom most tradespeople seem to think it is their god given right
to be offered it at any price they choose and DIYers are taking the
bread from their childrens mouths. I'm mostly thinking of plumbers
here admitedly, but god forbid that regulations extend their powers to
other trades.
I can see the benefit of getting major work checked by a certified
person once it's complete but only if there was a fixed (reasonable)
charging scale and a guarantee that there will be someone willing to
do it.
I couldn't even find a plumber who'd run a gas pipe to a new boiler
and do the certification, I'd even have let someone hang it on the
wall. The greedy ****s knew there was a bit of simple plumbing
required which they could charge £500 a day for (plus overcharging for
the parts obviously) and that I couldn't legally do anything unless I
found someone to do the gas and certification.
|
| IMM replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
Fit it and get a landlord's certificate. Covered.
|
| Lurch replied to IMM on 21 May 2004 |
Well, that's not really the point.
|
| Lurch replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
The problem is that as competent as someone thinks they are at diy,
they're not always. I come across diy bodges on a day to day basis and
the people that install them can't see what they've got wrong and why
it's downright dangerous. There's a difference between telling
everyone you know what you're doing and actually knowing what you're
doing. If you don't know something, how do you know?
I'm not saying everyone is like this, just some people are a bit over
confident.
It also works the other way, I don't really want to do work for people
who don't want to pay for whatever job it is they want doing and
assume that the first price I come up with must be a rip-off by
default. I don't have a problem doing small jobs, but the bigger
contracts are more worthwile as you're generally not been hassled
about knocking the price down a few quid.
How do you fix a charging scale? Make all the small firms charge the
same as larger firms with more overheads so the smaller firm ends up
with more profit, or the other way round? You can't fix a price, even
if you did no-one would be happy. This country is obsessed with
moaning and whining about everything under the sun, or even the clouds
as it usually is!
|
| Andy Hall replied to Lurch on 21 May 2004 |
Fine, but do you think for one moment that adding legislation around
this is going to deter the bodger?
I don't for one moment, and so what little statistical evidence that
there is for part P legislation is highly unlikely to be impacted by
this latest regulatory intrusion.
Price fixing is illegal anyway.......
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Lurch replied to Andy Hall on 21 May 2004 |
Er, no. I didn't say it would. I was merely pointing out the fact that
not everyone knows what they're doing, unfortunately a lot of the
people doing the ordering about and preaching don't either. I was
going for the general '2 sides to every coin' angle with my response.
I wholeheartedly disagree with part P, for more reasons than I can fit
on this page. I do like a good rant but not on newsgroups, I get bored
of typing!
And that, never thought of that one!
|
| stefek.zaba replied to Andy Hall on 24 May 2004 |
True-but: MoT tests show one model: there's a fixed upper charge, but
garages can choose to charge less to bring in business (and, in practice,
get the punter to spend their fix-it money at the same place).
Not that I don't think Part P is anything other than a move against
the black economy, shamelessly disguised as a "safety" move - the latter
given the lie by the stats you yourself dug up...
Stefek
|
| Tim Mitchell replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
It's not self righteous, it is unfortunately the way you have to think
in our increasingly litigious society (how do you spell that?).
You can carry on d-i-y-ing as much as you want, but you need to think
about the possible consequences of what you do, and the post you
reference above was all about that. It is not good advice to say "carry
on regardless" when there might be a liability claim waiting for you
round the next corner.
|
| Dave Plowman replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
I'd encourage anyone to have a go at near anything DIY. But when you see a
post that shows a lacking of even the most basic knowledge of electrics -
the sort of thing you'd get in a leaflet with switches sold at B&Q etc -
it begs the question as to whether that person should be attempting it
without first doing a little *basic* learning.
FWIW, I'm not referring to any particular thread in the above.
|
| jacob replied to Dave Plowman on 21 May 2004 |
I'd just get on with it if I were you and learn by your mistakes - if
your life is spared!.
I remember the first time I did some electrical wiring the back of a 4
gang switch (with 2 2way) looked as complicated as a valve radio by
the time I had finished it. When I came to switch on at the mains the
fuses went with a big bang and a burning smell. Took another 2 days to
work out why.
I'm much better at it now .
Remember the DIY battle cry; "you name it - we'll do it, and even if
we can't do it we'll still do it!"
Come to think - could make a good UK DIY T-shirt motto or DIY tattoo
cheers
Jacob
|
| Capitol replied to jacob on 21 May 2004 |
Come on, positive approach, Darwin.
Regards
Capitol
|
| Mary Fisher replied to jacob on 21 May 2004 |
A DIY tattoo?
There are some DIY projects I draw the line at ...
Mary
|
| jacob replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
Easy peasy - you just have to remember that it comes out in reverse if
you are doing it infront of a mirror - MUM is ok though
cheers
Jacob
|
| Mary Fisher replied to jacob on 23 May 2004 |
news:<40ae502d$0$22315$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net>...
I've been away this weekend and the consensus among the others trying to
sell their wares was that we'd have been more successful if we'd been
offering shoulder tattoos.
I wouldn't mind doing it to someone else but on myself ... no thanks. I
don't like needles ... <shudder>
Mary
|
| geoff replied to Kevin Chambers on 22 May 2004 |
I used to have a customer who had been on all the courses, passed exams,
had a car full of boiler manuals and course notes.
He was totally useless
|
| Martin Wiseman replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
With an attitude like that I think the word you are looking for is
epitaph.......
|
| Christian McArdle replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
Actually, working in your own home, you could have done that yourself if you
were willing to defend your competence to do the work in a court of law (if
required) and satisfy the building control department (as you wouldn't be
covered by the CORGI exemption from building control).
Christian.
|
| BigWallop replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
<<<snipped>>> (for space saving purposes)
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 ?
|
| stuart noble replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
As an accountant he'll know all about overcharging and putting the fear of
God into people about the consequences of d-i-y. As Mary and others have
said your BLAM!!! incidents are far more likely to be the result of greedy
tradesmen being in too much of a hurry.
Woman over the road literally had a ceiling fall on her head after a plumber
forgot to connect a fitting in the bathroom. He did buy her a bunch of
flowers though.
|
| BigWallop replied to stuart noble on 21 May 2004 |
Just a bunch of flowers ? Why didn't his properly obtained insurance cover the damage he
caused ? Was it because he didn't have a clue and the over charging was because he is an
unregistered cowboy.
This is why we need regulation of the trades. If a certain job takes a certain amount of
time and money, then the trades would have to knuckle down to a set amount of pay for that
type of work. Many trades are held back by local situations. Rents and rates on
workshops vary widely across the country, vehicle up keep and other transport situations
also vary as you move from region to region. So you have to allow for a certain overhead
structure on the pricing of things as well.
Accidents do occasionally happen. Yes, they do, that's why they are called accidents.
But downright ignorance to the possible dangers of your actions is not an accident.
|
| Andy Hall replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
The real reason why there is increasing regulation of the trades is a
back door attempt to put elements of it that have continued to
operate in the black economy into a regulatory structure in order to
reach them for tax purposes.
In the case of the Part P amendments to the Building Regulations, try
hard as the government might, they were unable to demonstrate any
safety or accident based reason for so doing.
The question then becomes one of whether an amount of training and an
exam constitute competence.
The reality is that it may help, but in the final analysis, people who
want to bodge jobs and do them incompetently and unsafely will
continue to do so, legislation or not.
Trained and certified individuals will still make mistakes on
occasions.
So the conclusion is really that this may all look good to those who
favour increased government intervention in our daily lives, to
lawyers who may benefit from litigation, to the taxman who will have
hooks into people who should have been paying their taxes and haven't
and to insurance companies who will be able to apply actuarial rules
more easily.
Will it be better for the consumer? I very much doubt it.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| N. Thornton replied to Andy Hall on 22 May 2004 |
Sadly there are also a great number who, while not being useless, are
incompetent and unsafe. And I'm talking about people who have passed
exams.
The British public today has a very unrealistic view of exams and bits
of paper. The reality is that
a) of the official exams I took I'm sure I've forgotten the vast
majority of the material covered.
b) The pass percentage required on most exams is so low as to make
those who pass routinely not competent.
c) many idiots manage to pass exams: they might know the contents of
the course, but still be dangerous due to sheer stupidity - have seen
this many times.
If you want to see a monumental testament to the failure of exams to
produce safe practitioners, look at GPs. The standards are... not
good.
Regards, NT
|
| Tony replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
A general question to all - I've heard that the wiring colouring is to
change but are the rules for electrical work changing to? I tried googling
but this group has so much thread creep it was a waste of time.
Is electrical work going the same way as gas work? Will light switches for
example, be disappearing from B&Q cos it will needs a qualified person to do
the job?
Is there a simple clear link that explains the changes that are coming?
Tony
|
| Christian McArdle replied to Tony on 21 May 2004 |
They sell boilers, gas PTFE tape and so forth, so there's no reason to
suspect so, even if the law is changed.
Christian.
|
| Bob replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
news:2h6ejdF9jhc7U1@uni-berlin.de...
I wonder if it will be possible to just sit an exam and get the certificate,
or whether you will have to go through an expensive course first...
Stupid question, I suppose!
Bob
|
| usenet replied to Tony on 21 May 2004 |
[snip]
Gas fittings haven't disappeared so why should light fitting?
|
| BigWallop replied to usenet on 21 May 2004 |
But there is nothing in place that says you can't carry out any DIY for yourself. That's
why it is called Do It Yourself. The point of being able to carry out work for others,
and profit from that work, is the coverage of the legislations. You can still quite
happily blow yourself and your property to kingdom come with a faulty gas or electrical
installation, just as long as you don't interfere with the property and well being of
others around you. It's this point that gets you into trouble.
|
| usenet replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
What are you rambling on about? It has absolutely nothing to do with
the question of whether electrical accessories will disappear from B&Q
as far as I can see and even less to do with my response.
.... and I *WISH* you'd limit your postings to less than 80 columns,
they are a right mess when wrapped to fit (and, yes, there is an RFC
which recommends 80 columns or less, it's not just my whim).
|
| Mary Fisher replied to usenet on 21 May 2004 |
news:2h6g1rF9kvmdU1@uni-berlin.de...
yourself. That's
work for others,
gas or electrical
You don't have to open his posts ...
Or mine.
Mary
|
| usenet replied to Mary Fisher on 24 May 2004 |
As it turned out it was an error/oversight in his configuration and
he was pleased to have been told. I could possibly have been a bit
gentler about pointing it out though.
The RFCs and netiquette recommendations do have a purpose and while
I'm not pedantic about them I do try and comply with them and do also
ask others to if the ignore them consistently.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to usenet on 24 May 2004 |
You've exonerated yourself :-)
It takes a strong person to admit a fault.
RFC?
We're all learning, all the time.
Mary
|
| Andy Hall replied to Mary Fisher on 24 May 2004 |
Request for Comment.
Part of the process of defining standards used for the Internet.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Mary Fisher replied to Andy Hall on 24 May 2004 |
Ah, thank you.
Mary
|
| usenet replied to Mary Fisher on 24 May 2004 |
Request For Comment - these are the documents which define most
Internet standards, everything like SMTP (mail sending), POP3 (mail
receiving), NNTP (Usenet News), etc. has one or more RFCs defining
exactly how it works.
Just do a Google search for RFC and you'll find all you ever wanted to
know about how the internet works (and lots more).
|
| Mary Fisher replied to usenet on 24 May 2004 |
Until now I've known everything I wanted to know ... it's the things we
don't know that we want to know about which cause questions.
Mary
(aka Donald)
|
| Andy Hall replied to Mary Fisher on 24 May 2004 |
You probably don't want to know about all this stuff, although RFCs
are a good cure for insomnia.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Mary Fisher replied to Andy Hall on 24 May 2004 |
Bugger. I don't suffer from that ...
Mary
|
| BigWallop replied to Mary Fisher on 24 May 2004 |
Yeah ! That make sense. But what about the things you did know that you wanted
know. They also cause questions.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 24 May 2004 |
news:2hecmpFbt01dU1@uni-berlin.de...
Oh, that's easy. I just ask about them.
Like RFC :-)
Mary
|
| BigWallop replied to usenet on 21 May 2004 |
yourself. That's
I was unaware that my columns were so exposed to being wrapped to fit. I have,
however, just checked my setting and they were indeed set incorrectly. I
installed a piece of software that could have had an influence on these
settings, but this has now been removed. I can only thank you for pointing this
out to me.
|
| N. Thornton replied to BigWallop on 22 May 2004 |
snip.....
this is both impossible and undesirable, since each job varies from
the next in many details. Not just parts and work, but also things
like access and other issues. Building work is full of issues.
Setting charge per hour also does not work, since
a) the worker will then have an incentive to work as slow as possible
b) it takes no account of the quality of each individuals work
c) it is wrongly anti-competitive.
Regards, NT
|
| Mary Fisher replied to stuart noble on 21 May 2004 |
Aww - that was kind.
Mary
|
| BigWallop replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
If a tradesperson tried to palm me off with a bunch of flowers to cover the cost of damage
they caused, I'd ram them up their ass.....uming they would offer me flowers in the first
place.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
the cost of damage
flowers in the first
I might consider placing them on his grave.
Mary
|
| Capitol replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
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
|
| Owain replied to Capitol on 22 May 2004 |
"Capitol" wrote
| The IEE regulations are a GUIDE to good
| practice and not mandatory.
The IEE regulations are mandatory in Scotland - they are cited in the
Building Regulations.
They are also, de facto if not de jure, mandatory in workplaces under the
H&SAWA.
Owain
|
| G&M replied to Capitol on 21 May 2004 |
Since the test spec for Windows exceeded 28000 pages back in 1997, (hate to
think how big it is now) either the defence system is almost untested or
somebody in Seattle isn't doing a good job with their testing.
|
| Capitol replied to G&M on 21 May 2004 |
I think we all know that Windows is untestable, as it doesn't actually work,
hence more B/S is needed to cover up the fact.
Regards
Capitol
|
| BigWallop replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
That being the case, is the internal workings of these controllers still the same as it
was 10 or 15 years ago. Would the DIYer fitting them notice that changes to the thickness
of the contacts inside the relays has had to be changed because the thinner ones don't
take the new load ratings from the newer boilers which sits further down the line from
them.
No they wouldn't. They'd only know that the controller looks the same and does the same
job as it always did. But, on the other hand, anyone with the knowledge to know that
after a certain date these controllers are not suitable for the newer boilers, because
they cause problems with the new contacts burning out, and they would / should
automatically change it because they know to look at the date of manufacture on the
controllers. That's a properly informed tradesperson.
Being competent, as has been mentioned before, is not the same as being certified to do
the work safely and securely. When I buy timber to make something, and I'm not joiner or
carpenter, I wouldn't know the first thing about the grain, the species, or the workings
of all the woods. I'd rely on someone telling me that, that particular wood is what I
should be using for that particular job. Who would be telling me this ? Someone with a
lot more experience in the job than I have. A fully qualified person in other words.
I don't think there are many DIYers who could walk in to a trade merchant and ask for a
special device or fitting that needs to be fitted into a particular job, without having
done some research into the job they're doing. The research being the proper procedures
and equipment needed to install the job properly and to full specifications of safety and
security. Who cares if the knowledge they gleaned from their research is never used by
them again. At least they took time to make sure that they knew all the implications of
the work they're going to carry out.
If the job then needs to be inspected by someone who is trained in the quality factor of
that type of work, then the DIYer would have no hesitation in allowing this to happen,
because they would know that they have learned as much as they can before, during and
after doing the work. So they should then be confident enough to allow the inspector to
have a look. It's the work that is not inspected that is causing dangerous circumstances.
New legislations are not created from thin air. They're created due to the continually
changing environments in the way equipment is being installed. And it is the final
installation of this equipment which creates dangerous environments.
|
| N. Thornton replied to BigWallop on 22 May 2004 |
1 Lots of tradespeople are neither properly informed nor competent.
2 This is a trivial matter, affecting MTBF, not safety.
3 The changes carried out by manufacturers will do the job.
no no. One does not need paper qualifications or certification to gain
knowledge. As you pointed out above. Lots of good sound info is given
out here on uk.d-i-y by people with no paper qualification in the
subject theyre discussing. We're talking DIY here, not brain surgery.
whether one gains the knowledge by research before the job or by a
training course a few years prior is immaterial.
No, youre evading the point here. The point is that ripoff prices are
being charged for an officially certified muppet to inspect and pass
work that has been done by someone more competent than themselves,
time after time. I have watched enough such inspections to know that
probably half of them barely know what theyre doing. Its not been just
once that I've had to explain to them whats going on - even with some
very simple matters. In reality these inspectors are not all competent
themselves.
While most laws are sound, as you well know they are also created in
response to political agendas and questionable reports. The reality is
there is very little support for some of the latest drives towards
professsionalism, and with perfectly good reason.
Regards, NT
|
| RichardS replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
methods must then
You've stated this before. Do you have any evidence to back this assertion
up? Is, on average, DIY work statistically better or worse than the broad
spectrum of work carried out by tradesmen (qualified or not?).
In the ODPM's "justification" for BRegs Part P ISTR that the number of fatal
electrocutions in the UK is tiny (in 10s rather than 100s or 1000s), and the
stats don't distinguish between fixed and portable appliances, nor
unqualified as opposed to qualified installations.
Where do we stop with this obsession with qualifications and certification?
Should DIY/unqualified car maintenance be banned on the grounds that you
might not spot a problem with the brakes if you happen to be changing the
oil filter?
Caveat Emptor. It's stunning that we don't commission electrical surveys
and gas safety checks more frequently as part of the house buying process.
Of course an electrical check even on work properly and competently carried
out by a fully qualified sparky 10 years ago might come back as
"installation does not meet current wiring regs". What does that mean? Is
it dangerous? I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of uk housing stock
doesn't meet current standards, and accident (electrocution/fire/etc) rates
are not out of control.
There are probably adequate remedies at law for dangerously shoddy work,
criminal negligence probably being at the top of the tree.
And if they want to feel confidently isolated from potential claims after a
house sale they could always commission gas/'electric safety checks and give
the buyers the reports...
<snip>
We have turned into a society obsessed with fear of insurance companies, the
cult of the "professional", rules and regulations, and the fear of something
going wrong no matter how small the risk.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to RichardS on 21 May 2004 |
I'm sure that's true. I'm sure it's also true of appliances, vehicles and
(especially) humans. Who hereabouts has the perfect body - because s/he
looks after it as we're all advised so that our lives are happier and
prolonged?
Mary
|
| The Natural Philosopher replied to Mary Fisher on 24 May 2004 |
I'm sure that's true. I'm sure it's also true of appliances, vehicles and
How dull it would be to have no scars.
I'd rather have a somewehat shorter and more interesting life, frankly...
|
| jacob replied to The Natural Philosopher on 25 May 2004 |
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote
Would this mean having a shorter but more interesting body?
Jacob
|
| RichardS replied to jacob on 25 May 2004 |
Hmmm.
It's not so much the length, but what you do with it.
Still, a short, sad one is in no-one's interests...
|
| N. Thornton replied to RichardS on 22 May 2004 |
10 deaths per year in Britain from both appliances and fixed wiring.
One can only guess at the number of these that are from fixed wiring
alone: probably much less than 1 per year. Even if it were as many as
9 per year, this would be one of the safest activities known to our
society.
A huge amount of expense is being placed on us under complete
pretence. Many have said so, many with far bigger voices than me. If
the welfare of the people were being considered at all, this extra
expense would be spent on something where it is genuinely needed, not
on paperwork that will achieve literally nothing.
I've done car brakes, electrical fitting, worked with 18M concentrated
acids, various toxins, made life and death decisions... lets compare.
Of the brakes I've had done professionally, some were downright
dangerous. None of my own work was. Professional mechanics are so
clueless most of them think that if one half fails in dual system
brakes, the other brakes will still work. They will not, not even a
bit.
Of the goods I've bought from professional sources, a few have been
irresponsible or dangerous on the toxin side, my work has not been.
And when it come to life and death decisions, some I've made have been
in dircet contradiction to highly qualified professionals after I have
checked out the facts thoroughly and documented why they have got it
wrong. In the majority of cases they have eventually accepted my case
and acted accordingly. Even in cases where I have no paper quals in
their field and they are highly respected. Had a case of this just
recently, and the person is now alive thankfully.
This is a scary idea to many, that someone without the bit of paper
could read up and get their facts straight, and someone with the bit
of paper could get things so wrong as to cause death to those in their
care. But its all documentable.
Yet it should all come down to paperwork? I think those who put this
paperwork on such a high pedestal are those who are unable to think
for themselves, and never dare question a professionals decision. If
they do so they will find just how imperfect people are.
Courses exams and paperwork _do_ matter, for sure, but I think most
today sorely misunderstand what they do and do not mean.
Theres another field riddles with crass incompetence, surveying.
Regards, NT
|
| Andy Hall replied to RichardS on 21 May 2004 |
Amen.....
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| BigWallop replied to RichardS on 21 May 2004 |
<<<snipped>>>
We're not turning into an obsessed society, we are, and always have been, an obsessed
society. The new legislations are taking into account the increase in the DIY trade
across the country. These new legislations are being put in place to prevent the increase
that this market will surely cause. The legislations are being pressured by the insurance
companies, mainly because it is them that have to deal with the consequences of the
outcome of the shoddy workmanship. It is the insurance companies that are assuring that
they have a comeback to some other entity for an installation not being to certain quality
standards.
That's why it is beginning with the services that could potentially be fatal if
incorrectly configured, for the want of better description. The dangers of gas and
electrical equipment are all to plain to see. Any leakage from any of them is
potentially, if not consequentially, fatal to the safety of persons and environments
around the leakage. All the equipment used on the installation is suitable for the job.
The person that is installing the equipment doesn't know that the equipment must be at a
certain temperature, or tightened to certain torque in the case of your vehicle, and a
leakage is caused by this lack of knowledge. What's the outcome ?
I personally think it comes down to the point that two heads are better than one, and if
you can have someone with a good knowledge of the trade to give it a check over after the
works done, and they don't see or detect any problems with it after they carry out their
tests. Then it is a good thing to have done.
The legislations are there to protect before the statistics increase, and not put in place
after the stat's show they are needed.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
than one, and if
It is indeed a counsel of perfection.
If ifs and ands were pots and pans ...
Mary
|
| N. Thornton replied to Mary Fisher on 22 May 2004 |
Its not, because it is expense and time that isnt saving any lives.
There are other uses for these resources that actually would save
lives.
Our electrical safety standards are the highest and tightest in the
world. Why has no other country followed our 'lead'? Are they all
ignorant fools, or have they perhaps had a peek at the statistics?
Regards, NT
|
| BigWallop replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
And names that cannae hurt eis ?
Sorry ! That's the sticks and stones one, isn't it ?
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
then we should ALL be tinkers ...
Aye.
Mary
|
| Andy Hall replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
.. and kettles. Why do supermarkets sell bleach?
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Mary Fisher replied to Andy Hall on 21 May 2004 |
Why are we allowed to be born? It's a certain death sentence.
Mary
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
This is something I intended posting a warning about.
We've been doing some resin casting for a son and to facilitate removal
Spouse sprayed the inside of the mould with silicone lubricant.
In the dining room, which has a varnished floor.
I almost measured my length on it when I slipped.
Hurrah! some might exclaim - but it's not funny if it happens to you or your
loved ones.
Don't spray silicone where there's a hard floor. You might damage someone
you like. Even yourself ...
End of lecture.
Mary
|
| RichardS replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
Yes, but have you been trained and certified in the application of silicone
sprays? you should be a member of Ye Olde Guild of Silicone Sprayers, you
know....
Dont worry, it'll be legislated against soon :-)
(jocularity aside, I'll remember that, thanks)
|
| Mary Fisher replied to RichardS on 21 May 2004 |
I'm a Liveryman of the The Worshipful Company of All Stuffe Slippery but
Spouse isn't and he did the deed ...
I do hope so. I sent a copy of my post to Mr Blair, just to give him
something to do.
If you don't it will all end in tears ...
Mary
|
| Andy Hall replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
The legislation is being brought about by a government intent on
unnecessary regulation and interfence in people's lives and in a
desire to attempt to end the black economy in the building trade by
putting tradespeople into registered orgnaisations.
This is a totally bogus argument and a slippery slope to a
totalitarian state.
As evidenced by the growth in DIY stores it is a growing market, but
it is not reasonable to correlate that to increased accident risk.
If you go to one of the third world type A&E departments of an NHS
hospital on a Saturday afternoon (assuming you have the whole
afternoon to waste), then you find a significant number of people who
have cut themselves or got bits of something in their eye from DIY
work.
What's the next move? Legislate against that as well? Some of
those injuries are stupidity, while others are genuine.
The correct thing to do is to provide proper education, not to
mollycoddle people and control what they can and can't do.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| The Natural Philosopher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
That was precisely my experience. I really had to do ALL the work on my
UFH system myself - the plumber simply shook his head and wanted nothing
to do with it.
Trades, by and large, do NOT want to take risks by doing something new
and different. They want to do what they know exactly how to do, as
profitably as possible.
I had architects, structural engineers and teh BCO scarthig their heads
and muttering over what I wanted to do. In the end (and you could hear
them almost muttering 'glad its his money') I ended up with somethng
unique, different and mostly working correctly. Only teh bits I DIDN'T
come here to ask about (and relied on so called builders and experts)
had problems.
The sort of D-I-Yer who makea a balls up and a dangerous mess is NOT the
sort of D-I-Yer who posts here for the most part. Its the sort who hang
out in B & Q, and use a staple gun to clip cables to the wall for their
new mood lighting...apart from one notable exception, those too stupid
to use a computer aren't represented here.
|
| Ian Stirling replied to The Natural Philosopher on 23 May 2004 |
<snip>
Staple-guns work just fine for clipping cabling.
(if careful, and not for power stuff of course.)
I made up a plant-label with a notch in it, and glued it to the
front of the staple-gun to ensure adequate centering, and then adjusted
the power so that it just gripped the cable.
Nice and fast, and no fiddling about looking for cable clips.
(it was just a temperature sensor wire, for the greenhouse)
|
| Owain replied to Ian Stirling on 23 May 2004 |
"Ian Stirling" wrote
| Staple-guns work just fine for clipping cabling.
| (if careful, and not for power stuff of course.)
However audio cables should be clipped at irregular intervals to prevent the
formation of a standing wave.
Owain
|
| Pete C replied to Ian Stirling on 23 May 2004 |
Hi,
Another one is to staple over a cable tie and use that to secure the
cable, handy where there is not enough space to hammer in a cable
clip.
cheers,
Pete.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
methods must then
There's a third scenario. The work is done by (say) a CORGI registered
fitter, a sole trader. For whatever reason it goes BLAM - at any time in the
future.
The fitter can't be found - moved, changed jobs, died ....
What then?
Mary
|
| BigWallop replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
The trade organisation he/she was a member of will be able to advise on these procedures
for you. If the installer has died or moved away out of the country, then the matter is
taken up by the powers that regulate that particular trade. So you do have a comeback on
someone if this does occur. If the installer wasn't part of any of these organisations,
then they wouldn't be properly certificated and, hence, shouldn't be installing that type
of equipment. So it goes back to being a DIY job.
|
| RichardS replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
<snip>
these procedures
have a comeback on
installing that type
You reckon that the trade body would accept any liablilty whatsoever because
one of their past members had done a shoddy job? Or that they would do
anything other than fight like hell to protect their member's interest?
|
| N. Thornton replied to RichardS on 22 May 2004 |
advise on these procedures
country, then the matter is
do have a comeback on
these organisations,
be installing that type
To be honest I think a reality check is needed here.
1. IME every bit as much professional work is incompetent and
muppet-like as DIY work.
2. The vast majority of DIYers are carry out work competently. Those
without the necessary level of competence rarely touch electrics or
gas, for reasons I could go into separately.
3. The few that are dangerous are not likely to follow any new rules
anway, since they make no attempt to follow or get informed about the
existing ones. Hence legislation against such work is ineffective.
4. The new drive for professionalism unreasonably penalises all
DIYers, while having no effect on the dangerous few.
5. The only visible 'benefit' is to the wallets of the trades
concerned, members of which routinely charge rip off prices for poorly
done jobs that most of us can do for close to nothing and to far
higher standards ourselves.
6. There is no serious justification for preventing those who are
competent from doing their own DIY work of any shade, whether it be
electrical, gas, structural, heating, whatever. Competence should be
all that matters. The new drive claims to discriminate on grouns of
competence, but in reality does not at all.
I suppose for completeness I should ask if you are in one of these
trades yourself?
Regards, NT
|
| Lurch replied to N. Thornton on 23 May 2004 |
<Snip good points by NT>
Quite true. It's like I've said before, as have others here, for some reason
someone in an office, in a suit, who's never done a days manual labour in his
life, has decided that if you are a member of a trade body you are good at what
you do. If you are not, then you are incompetent.
I personally have found it to be a completely random affair where I've come
across plenty of people in the NICEIC who are downright clueless and dangerous,
and I've also come across plenty of people who aren't members of any trade
bodies and are extremely competent at what they do.
The problem is that ideally a case by case, or person by person, competence
check is needed, but there simply isn't the time or manpower, so a wider blanket
ruling is placed and covered with red tape so no-one has a clue what's going on.
|
| BigWallop replied to RichardS on 21 May 2004 |
If the signature on the completion or safety certificate was made by one of their members,
then yes, they do have to uphold their part in the proceedings. After all, it is them who
makes the rules.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
these procedures
have a comeback on
Not if you're dead.
Mary
|
| BigWallop replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
<<<snipped>>>
(more extremes to follow) :-)) Yes you do. Well, rightly, your relatives and lawyers
appoint would.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
relatives and lawyers
That will be a very great comfort :-)))
|
| BigWallop replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
Any compensation would help to pay for the pretty box at least. :-))
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
I'm not having one. A plank (reclaimed boards) and a winding sheet will be
enough.
We're interested in archaeology, especially graves and their contents.
Recently I asked Spouse what he'd like to be buried in, he has a choice of
clothing from Roman to VII Edwardian. He said that, since he spent so much
time in it, his boiler suit would be the most suitable.
Mary
|
| BigWallop replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
That's a man efter mee ane hert. :-))
The better half was going to leave her body to medical science but I told her she's going
in a black plastic bag in the back garden. She always likes the view from there anyway.
Ooh ! I'm being horrid.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
"BigWallop" <spamguard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message news:M_orc.1178
No you're not. My body was left for research but I doubt that they'll want
it - it's been too messed about with. I'd be hapy in the garden. But save
the plastic bag for something useful.
Mary
|
| BigWallop replied to Mary Fisher on 21 May 2004 |
I thought the plastic bag would preserve her for future archi tech nogolists.
|
| Mary Fisher replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
No, she'd be better left unwrapped. then you can save money on the bag - and
use it for something useful. I'm sure you'll appreciate the saving ...
Mary
|
| Bob Mannix replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
Firstly you'll have a long search to find any ng without incredibly
self-righteous people on it (they tend to be attracted by the prospect of an
audience).
Secondly, yes it is depressing but that's not the fault of the posters who
are telling you how it *is*, not how it should be. After all, most original
posters are after information, not political debate (at least on uk.d-i-y
they are). It's not the DIY posters telling you you need a paper-competent
person who have made the situation - they are merely trying to help by
telling you what the situation is (well, most of them, including me). Saying
"you can't do x legally without a qualification" is not a stance, it's a
point of information. Many will carry on and do x anyway but at least they
are doing so better informed. If you aren't going to like the answer, don't
ask the question!
Bob Mannix
|
| Mike Mitchell replied to Kevin Chambers on 22 May 2004 |
I absolutely know where you're coming from. My gas fitters charged £40
to disconnect the hob, then two days later another £80 to connect the
new cooker. Total time spent: 30 minutes. The cooker itself only cost
£250. I believe the situation with tradespeople in the UK has become
dire, yet there will come a point when I am just too old to do it
myself and will have to rely on the cowboys. I can only hope that
before then some government will be in power to apply proper
regulations to the entire industry. That stupid programme on BBC where
the guy is driving arund the country in a bus by a driver who never
speaks is a total waste of a half-hour programming slot. The programme
is just making a bit of flippant "edutainment" and not addressing the
problems we all face anything like seriously enough.
MM
|
| Phil replied to Mike Mitchell on 24 May 2004 |
We got the idiot CORGI plumber from hell when we lived in London but
had a rented property in Newcastle. We called this loon to do a CP12
and he diagnosed that the pump was seized so I changed it. It
transpired that he did not realise that you need to turn the hall
thermostat on to make the pump run.
Fortunatly we had not paid for the CP12 and I told him that his money
had been used on a new pump. He declined to sue.
What really annoys me about this type of stupidity/dishonesty is that
I require a CP12 legally.
Still it was nice to turn the tables on him.
Moral I would not entertain getting in a CORGI person after this but
would rather do it myself.
PHIL
|
| Christian McArdle replied to Kevin Chambers on 21 May 2004 |
You'll find that the answers to questions about dangerous subjects such as
electrical wiring depend very much on the OP's wording of the question. It
is often obvious that the OP really isn't at all competent in the field and
that it is far more appropriate to advise them to contract a professional to
do the work than encourage them to perform a task that they are clearly too
inexperienced but gung ho to complete safely.
On the other hand, some questions are clearly about specific technical
issues by people who do appear to understand the basic principles. They tend
to get the technical help needed to fill in the little gaps required to do
the job.
Christian.
|
|
