AFDD's (Please sign this in case your house burns down)?

[spynage]

Hi.

Just completed my yearly asssement with Stroma.

The assesor suggested I have letter made up for customers to sign to confirm they have been told about the AFDD's if they still do not want to have them fit. (Because of cost presumably)

Fine I thought, but then no. Who wants to spend £500+ on a new consumer unit only to think they have paid for half a job and that their installation is not as safe as it could be? Am I expected to tell them that they probably wont need them but it would technically be safer if they did? Or lie and say they MUST have them or lie again and tell them they won't need them?
Or say I'm not sure but they are expensive so please sign this to relieve me of responsibility?

Seems like a very unsatisfactory situation to me. Does this not undermine me as an electrician?

Looks like the electricity council understand that AFDD's and SPD's are available but they are unwilling to make installation mandatory. Aren't they passing the buck with this and pushing responibilty all the way down the line to the customer?

What do you think? Should I draw a letter up?

If I don't explain this properly to clients then I can see myself being easily undercut in price by other electricians going down the RCD only route. Surely regs should be unambiguous in this respect?

cheers

Spynage

 

[Vortigern]

Have a look at this thread. I have thought about it for a long time and tend to think @Cookie and @Sisyphus (who may disavow the below!) are correct. Effectively AFDD are fraudulent and manufactured by the people who make the regs. Go figure!
AFDDs are a massive fraud - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/afdds-are-a-massive-fraud.175536/#post-1553501 it is a long thread and I think there was another one. What is being said is that RCD do the job of AFDD in essence (gross simplification). We are being foisted with items that are not needed and very little science to show they are. We and the public are paying hand over fist for profit for the big boys, if we don't sign up to this fraud we are out of the scheme.

It is a difficult one. I say the above as if you look at the thread and links there are very convincing arguments this really is the case. I recall Wago wanted in on the European market. Hager, who are on JPEL who write the regs, brought in the requirement for the MF mark, which stopped Wago getting in on the market as their application for MF mark was massively delayed. I have no doubt there are many other instances of this type of practice.
We need an engineering committee with no such conflict of interests to write the regs from a purely science/practice viewpoint.

 

[Pete999]

Hi.

Just completed my yearly asssement with Stroma.

The assesor suggested I have letter made up for customers to sign to confirm they have been told about the AFDD's if they still do not want to have them fit. (Because of cost presumably)

Fine I thought, but then no. Who wants to spend £500+ on a new consumer unit only to think they have paid for half a job and that their installation is not as safe as it could be? Am I expected to tell them that they probably wont need them but it would technically be safer if they did? Or lie and say they MUST have them or lie again and tell them they won't need them?
Or say I'm not sure but they are expensive so please sign this to relieve me of responsibility?

Seems like a very unsatisfactory situation to me. Does this not undermine me as an electrician?

Looks like the electricity council understand that AFDD's and SPD's are available but they are unwilling to make installation mandatory. Aren't they passing the buck with this and pushing responibilty all the way down the line to the customer?

What do you think? Should I draw a letter up?

If I don't explain this properly to clients then I can see myself being easily undercut in price by other electricians going down the RCD only route. Surely regs should be unambiguous in this respect?

cheers

Spynage

Sounds like subliminal blackmail to me to be honest, there are documents you could give to your prospective customers at the quote stage, and let them decide whether to fit AFDDs or not, IMO, hard selling tactics come to mind, poor advice from your CPS provider in my book.

 

[radiohead]

No need to get uptight about it. No need for customer scaring letters to sign. There is no requirement to fit AFDD's. Compliance with the regulations is all that is necessary.

 

[Cbuk2k2]

Stick a footer on the end or your quote or in your T&Cs saying something like:

"Client was advised of the advantages of inclusion of an AFFD in their installation but chose not to include this additional protection. Client accepts liabliity for any later issues resulting in from the emission of this equipment."

 

[Pete999]

Hi.

Just completed my yearly asssement with Stroma.

The assesor suggested I have letter made up for customers to sign to confirm they have been told about the AFDD's if they still do not want to have them fit. (Because of cost presumably)

Fine I thought, but then no. Who wants to spend £500+ on a new consumer unit only to think they have paid for half a job and that their installation is not as safe as it could be? Am I expected to tell them that they probably wont need them but it would technically be safer if they did? Or lie and say they MUST have them or lie again and tell them they won't need them?
Or say I'm not sure but they are expensive so please sign this to relieve me of responsibility?

Seems like a very unsatisfactory situation to me. Does this not undermine me as an electrician?

Looks like the electricity council understand that AFDD's and SPD's are available but they are unwilling to make installation mandatory. Aren't they passing the buck with this and pushing responibilty all the way down the line to the customer?

What do you think? Should I draw a letter up?

If I don't explain this properly to clients then I can see myself being easily undercut in price by other electricians going down the RCD only route. Surely regs should be unambiguous in this respect?

cheers

Spynage

Well Spynage, you have gone very quite, all very well asking legitimate questions but your reaction would be valued.

 

[radiohead]

Stick a footer on the end or your quote or in your T&Cs saying something like:

"Client was advised of the advantages of inclusion of an AFFD in their installation but chose not to include this additional protection. Client accepts liabliity for any later issues resulting in from the emission of this equipment."

Sound advise apart from the last sentence which is superfluous.

 

[snowhead]

That's a ridiculous and unnecessary idea from Stroma.

I'm surprised Stroma didn't ask the O.P to sign a letter stating that they (Stroma) had advised the member (alias Spynage) to sign to confirm that they (the customer) were aware of but did not want AFDD fitting and that they (Stroma) do not take any responsibility for any action taken or not taken by either party (alias Spynage and the Customer) in reference to AFDD.

 

[Pete999]

That's a ridiculous and unnecessary idea from Stroma.

I'm surprised Stroma didn't ask the O.P to sign a letter stating that they (Stroma) had advised the member (alias Spynage) to sign to confirm that they (the customer) were aware of but did not want AFDD fitting and that they (Stroma) do not take any responsibility for any action taken or not taken by either party (alias Spynage and the Customer) in reference to AFDD.

Bottom covering at it's lowest ebb

 

[spynage]

I wanted to study the thread that was posted first.

However! I will say that I want to get away from convoluted bottom covering as was suggested. It was my assessors idea not mine.

Clearly the buck is being passed here. I'm wondering wether who is responsible and why I'm supposed to 'recommend' AFDD's if they are not mandatory? I'm thinking to seek clarity from Stroma and have them put it in 'WRITING' to me first so I know where I stand.

They seem to think us Electricians are culpable if someones house catches fire because we haven't recommended AFDD's. Really? If that is the case they should be mandatory..

 

[Vortigern]

To address your initial enquiry; no doubt assessors get it wrong sometimes. I have come across this myself and showed them in the regs and they have graciously deferred. It may be that you should question that suggestion and counter it with direct information from the regs and discuss accordingly. You may find he withdraws the comment. It can be done politely and in good spirit. I think first post is the regs not suggestions from a scheme as a matter of priorities.

NOTE: Examples of where such devices can be used include:
• premises with sleeping accommodation
• locations with a risk of fire due to the nature of processed or stored materials, i.e. BE2 locations (e.g. barns woodworking shops, stores of combustible materials)
• locations with combustible constructional materials, i.e. CA2 locations (e.g. wooden buildings)
• fire propagating structures, i.e. CB2 locations
• locations with endangering of irreplaceable goods.
Looking at the above, domestic installation does not get included. Although recommended unless the above list is on your installation I can't see in the regs we should be putting out disclaimers where they are not fitted. A domestic customer can hardly be expected to evaluate the risk of such a technical matter and I would not put such before them.

 

[Cbuk2k2]

Sound advise apart from the last sentence which is superfluous.

From

Bottom covering at it's lowest ebb

I'm afraid its also the way of the word in these litigious times.

I find having a detailed and extenvise list of T&C's has got me out of a lot of sticky situations which could otherwise have wasted a lot of time/money.

 

[pirate]

My house has "sleeping accommodation"...
John Ward isn't particularly keen on AFDDs. He's not impressed at all, actually. 3 videos worth a look.

 

[Lister1987]

Until they are mandatory, research yourself, pass thr knowledge to the customer and let them decide.

 

[Cbuk2k2]

Sound advise apart from the last sentence which is superfluous.

Thats just boiler plate based on feedback from my solicitor when I had the document reviewed. None of it’s strictly necessary but helps your case if you ever end up in a dispute.
[automerge]1596998173[/automerge]

Until they are mandatory, research yourself, pass thr knowledge to the customer and let them decide.

I can see where they are coming from, some sort of accident occurs, an engineer with a clipboard comes along and says an AFDD would have prevented the issue. The customers not wanted to pay for one but denies they were even given the option of having one fitted.

Having something in your T&Cs costs you nothing and could save a lot of anguish down the road.