regulation opinions.

[billy10]

Hi all,

I basically Wanted to see if anybody knew of any regulation which eludes to having 1 lighting circuit in a single storey dwelling being non compliant in any way.

I personally do not know of one and can not find one nor can my scheme providers tech support so wondered if anybody here knew of one.

many thanks,
Billy

 

[DPG]

Put another light in somewhere that's fed from an FCU off the ring. Daz

 

[billy10]

I'd respond asking exactly which regulations it breaches and what specific remedial action, relevant to the property in question, he proposes.
I would assume his involvement would be as the building control officer as this is notifiable work.

I asked him which reg it contravened and he said 314.2 - in my opinion it's very open to both views but he's making an argument based on assumptions and when i mentioned it was a 1 floor maisonette he sounded suprised.

He has proposed to pull a new cable to the first point of the lighting circuit and split into 2 from there - farsical solution but some can't be reasoned with.

He's not the building control officer, i mentioned the Part P cert to him and he said he doesn't care about that as he doesn't see it so sounds to me like he's some kind of QS for the council. To be honest it's a bit of a strange situation, never really heard of it before.

 

[billy10]

Originally to get him to shut up i said ok no problem i'll stick a maintained emergency light within the fuseboard cupboard but he rekons that wouldn't help the situation. After that i just gave up trying to reason with the man.

I think this is a case of someone trying to justify a job as it seemed a bit heavy handed and an overreaction to reject a certificate based on something this ridiculous.

 

[stevethesparks]

Don't sound like you will get him to budge, and it might just be easier to keep him happy. Have you tried talking to your scheme provider?

 

[Andy78]

I asked him which reg it contravened and he said 314.2 - in my opinion it's very open to both views but he's making an argument based on assumptions and when i mentioned it was a 1 floor maisonette he sounded suprised.

He has proposed to pull a new cable to the first point of the lighting circuit and split into 2 from there - farsical solution but some can't be reasoned with.

He's not the building control officer, i mentioned the Part P cert to him and he said he doesn't care about that as he doesn't see it so sounds to me like he's some kind of QS for the council. To be honest it's a bit of a strange situation, never really heard of it before.

If he has quoted 314.2 then that doesn't really cover the issue he has raised. That would be more relevant to 314.1 (i) and (iii).
As said, ask what remedial action he proposes as your previous suggestions to him have been declined.

 

[billy10]

Don't sound like you will get him to budge, and it might just be easier to keep him happy. Have you tried talking to your scheme provider?

I've spoken to my scheme provider and they agree with me, he basically said that he'd never heard of this before and neither have I.

It's all just boiling down to one persons preference I think and he's trying to make his opinion fact by spouting open to interpretation regulations.

I'm waiting to speak to the customer as they haven't answered their phone thus far but it's an awkward situation as I think it's compliant, my scheme provider thinks so too and general consensus here seems to indicate people think the same so maybe wait to see how it pans out.

 

[billy10]

If he has quoted 314.2 then that doesn't really cover the issue he has raised. That would be more relevant to 314.1 (i) and (iii).
As said, ask what remedial action he proposes as your previous suggestions to him have been declined.

To be honest it's all going to boil down to the client and what they want to do with it, I'd say they'll just want it signed off and by the sounds of it, like was said before, he's not going to budge now as I've questioned him over it and he's going to want to be seen to be right.

He's remedial action that's been suggested is pulling in a new circuit and pulling a new feed (off of opposite RCD) to just 1 light at the start of the existing and split them there!

It's just one of those where he caught me off guard with it this morning as it didn't even enter my head it could be that what made them reject the cert so got me thinking.

 

[Andy78]

To be honest it's all going to boil down to the client and what they want to do with it, I'd say they'll just want it signed off and by the sounds of it, like was said before, he's not going to budge now as I've questioned him over it and he's going to want to be seen to be right.

He's remedial action that's been suggested is pulling in a new circuit and pulling a new feed (off of opposite RCD) to just 1 light at the start of the existing and split them there!

It's just one of those where he caught me off guard with it this morning as it didn't even enter my head it could be that what made them reject the cert so got me thinking.

Daft really. I would say a couple of emergency lights would provide a better solution than just separating one light onto a different circuit.
I would have to agree with the fella though that one lighting circuit is not meeting the wording and intent of the regulations.

 

[NDG Elecs]

If you are a member of a scheme then why is it not being self certified by yourself? Not having a go, just confused that's all. Is it that he is refusing to sign off the entire project?

You have put the main RFC on one RCD and the light on the other so that is exactly the same as many 2 storey house installs. I can sort of see his point, but agree with you that a couple of NM emergency lights would be a better solution to him digging his heels in. Some folks don't have the ability to say "fair enough I see your point"...


Edit: I seem to have half copied Andy's post above...! Not intentional!

 

[billy10]

If you are a member of a scheme then why is it not being self certified by yourself? Not having a go, just confused that's all. Is it that he is refusing to sign off the entire project?

You have put the main RFC on one RCD and the light on the other so that is exactly the same as many 2 storey house installs. I can sort of see his point, but agree with you that a couple of NM emergency lights would be a better solution to him digging his heels in. Some folks don't have the ability to say "fair enough I see your point"...


Edit: I seem to have half copied Andy's post above...! Not intentional!

No I have carried out all the and tested it and self certified it with my scheme, this just adds to the confusion here, he's trying to act as tho he's some sort of QS over me in this situation but he's nothing to do with it.

All that's happened is the customers bought a house, i think council own the freehold from what I can gather, I've carried out a Rewire and certified it, Part P'd it and we've said our goodbyes, then 2 months down the line the council have said they reject my certificate based on the above.

I've got to be honest all of it seems to point to Jeremy beadle being behind this.

 

[telectrix]

more like jeremy jobsworth.

 

[NDG Elecs]

Still a touch confused mate! If it's a privately bought house why is the council even involved! Why have they got your certificate? I normally just submit details of address and the works carried out, that's all.

If it's 8 weeks after have you not already got your compliance cert through. I would possibly tell him to complain to your scheme if he aint happy, see how far that gets him!!

Don't quite see how the free holder bit fits in though. Good luck!

 

[billy10]

Well it gets even more farsical, the customer has now just emailed me and apparently he's accepted the certificate now and all is ok.

What a rollercoaster of a day.

 

[billy10]

Still a touch confused mate! If it's a privately bought house why is the council even involved! Why have they got your certificate? I normally just submit details of address and the works carried out, that's all.

If it's 8 weeks after have you not already got your compliance cert through. I would possibly tell him to complain to your scheme if he aint happy, see how far that gets him!!

Don't quite see how the free holder bit fits in though. Good luck!

No I'm with you on the confusion mate. God knows how or why he's involved, nor why he's got a copy of the installation cert.

I've had the part p compliance form through after I registered it.

It's all one big mess, not sure anybody except the guy knows what he means or what's going on.

 

[telectrix]

so now send him an additional certificate.... " --- OF THE MONTH".