Amendment 2 problem.

[Sharpend]

More to the point who will the house insurers blame?

 

[kerching]

maybe I should apply to get my name changed to “no splinters“

Teflon arse?......just suggesting

 

[Sharpend]

Teflon arse?......just suggesting

Doesn’t stick like s***!

 

[DontLookAtMe]

...

My gripe, as always is that the faceless and nameless people, who make these decisions, don’t do anything to educate Joe public

...

Thanks for the comments (well most of them). My apologies for the slow response I didn't get back until 11pm and I am out again now at 6:30.

This comment from Murdoch jumped at me and I thought I would reply quickly. The people that set these rules are not faceless, they are the manufacturers themselves. If you are with Napit then review the Webinar on SPD's. It is run by a lady from Surge Protection Devices Ltd, halfway through the Napit lad credits her with sitting on the committee and being pivotal in the writing of the latest amendment.

So we let manufacturers set the rules and the poor are then priced out of the market while profits skyrocket. What a shocker - pun intended.

 

[Murdoch]

This comment from Murdoch jumped at me and I thought I would reply quickly. The people that set these rules are not faceless, they are the manufacturers themselves. If you are with Napit then review the Webinar on SPD's. It is run by a lady from Surge Protection Devices Ltd, halfway through the Napit lad credits her with sitting on the committee and being pivotal in the writing of the latest amendment.

So we let manufacturers set the rules and the poor are then priced out of the market while profits skyrocket. What a shocker - pun intended.

The poor aren't price out, the manufacturers of the parts win, the regs books printers win, the CPS's win, the training companies win.

The rest of us have to pay for this ........ as do the consumers

AND the manufacturers do little of nothing to educate joe public - thats my main beef with all this - they just take, take , take

 

[Sidewinder]

Thanks for the comments (well most of them). My apologies for the slow response I didn't get back until 11pm and I am out again now at 6:30.

This comment from Murdoch jumped at me and I thought I would reply quickly. The people that set these rules are not faceless, they are the manufacturers themselves. If you are with Napit then review the Webinar on SPD's. It is run by a lady from Surge Protection Devices Ltd, halfway through the Napit lad credits her with sitting on the committee and being pivotal in the writing of the latest amendment.

So we let manufacturers set the rules and the poor are then priced out of the market while profits skyrocket. What a shocker - pun intended.

All,
Kirsty is only one of many.
Manufacturers have to be present on JPEL/64 to advise on the technological developments.
By far the largest contingent on the committee are those employed by or linked to Certsure.
While they can be accused of being faceless they are not nameless.
The names and organisations that they represent are listed in BS7671.
NAPIT has a representation on both JPEL/64 and the international committee IEC TC/64.
When you say that “they” are too far detached from the industry, which part?
Because without checking I know for definite that there are two of “them” that are still working for electrical contractors. And not the big national names either. Local SMEs.
The IET gets blamed for the changes. The IET is a minority on JPEL/64.
The 4 senior engineers at the IET are passionate about supporting the sparks.
Another common complaint is that of relentless changes.
If you look back, the interval is roughly the same as it has always been between the publication of a new version.

 

[Murdoch]

Anyway on the subject of this and EICRs for the PRS.

The legislation states inspect to the 18th edition, not AMD 1, not AMD 2 so new changes can’t really be highlighted as anything other than C3

Happy days

 

[UNG]

Anyway on the subject of this and EICRs for the PRS.

The legislation states inspect to the 18th edition, not AMD 1, not AMD 2 so new changes can’t really be highlighted as anything other than C3

Happy days

How can you code something that isn't in the regs specified for use / reference in the PRS legislation

 

[Murdoch]

How can you code something that isn't in the regs specified for use / reference in the PRS legislation

the PRS legislation says inspections should be done to the 18th edition