Electrical Danger Notice!!! Client Seriously Not Happy

[philbas]

So getting back to relating it to enforcing EICR's to householders, what houses shall we make exempt? Maybe any house hold that owns a non-MOT'able vehicle .... Or cherry picker....!

Exempt from what?, an EICR is not a legal requirment, all we can do is advise. We have no legal right to enforce anything.

If the householder chooses to ignore our advise they have commited no crime to be exempt from.

 

[Monkeyboy]

They're some argumentative people on this topic!

Shed69 wants to find a way to make our homes a safer place. One death or injury is one too many!

Even Andy must agree with that!

 

[Graham Lister]

They're some argumentative people on this topic! Shed69 wants to find a way to make our homes a safer place. One death or injury is one too many!

Even Andy must agree with that!

The phrase one death or injury is one too many is the reason health and safety has gone mad in this country. Compulsory EICRs wont make a jot of difference to the amount of domestic injuries caused by shoddy electrical installations. It would just be met with so much apathy by the public and be seen as another stealth tax. Its merits could not be justified and the whole expense of publicising it would be met by who? Its a ridiculous idea and unworkable.

 

[shed69]

I think you'd think different Graham if the one person was a member of your family or a close friend... And I dont think it wouldn't make a jot of difference at all... Put properly to people and they would come round to the idea, I have a large customer base and through absolute honesty and taking time to explain things most of them are willing to spend a few quid to keep their homes and work places up to a safe standard...

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on the idea!!

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 07:18 ---------- Previous post was made at 07:15 ----------

Exempt from what?, an EICR is not a legal requirment, all we can do is advise. We have no legal right to enforce anything.

If the householder chooses to ignore our advise they have commited no crime to be exempt from.

Hi philbas, you need to read the whole thread, you've kinda picked up on something that isn't the whole picture

 

[Monkeyboy]

My point was regarding argumentative people.

The thread was aimed at making our homes a safer place.

Googling mot except vehicles to try prove a point is ridiculous in my book.

Mark

 

[apprentice87]

Errrrm, i do not think anyone had to google MOT exempt vehicles, I for one have owned one...

john..

 

[a1]

Wow, this thread has gone off topic.

Legally, you can drive a motor vehicle, without and MOT and even Road Fund Licence (car tax) too, on a public highway.

I have done it.

Done a car up, got insurance after informing them that there is no Tax on it and I need to drive it to an MOT center. Phones MOT center up to confirm, they say "Fine, we cover the Tax" side, but it HAS to be insured.

To do this you HAVE to pre-book the MOT. You can't just get in your car and turn up for an MOT, with no pre-booked appointment as you WILL be breaking the law and will get prosecuted, if caught.

 

[Doc Hudson]

They're some argumentative people on this topic! Shed69 wants to find a way to make our homes a safer place. One death or injury is one too many!

Even Andy must agree with that!

My point was regarding argumentative people.The thread was aimed at making our homes a safer place.

Googling mot except vehicles to try prove a point is ridiculous in my book.

Mark

Please stop trying to take this thread further off topic by discussing how argumentative you think people are, it carries no constructive or helpful input to the discussion in hand. If you read the first post, the thread was actually about a customer being unhappy about an apparent prematurely issued danger notice. The general consensus from many members was that the OP had probably issued the notice a little to quickly, as this was only a visit to do a quote, no PIR / EICR has been undertaken and certainly no electrician should be looking to contact a homeowners insurance company in relation to a danger notice issued. This is where the thread drifted to the merits or otherwise of home insurance insurance and the condition of electrical installations. Your opening comments on this thread could be considered argumentative itself. Possible it would be best to just comment on the thread topic and rest assured if the discussion and debate did get argumentative appropriate action can be taken. As Grahams post implies, if we adopt your one death is too many stance unfortunately we would need to ban or restrict a whole host of things as well as electrical work, Cars, Motorbikes, Alcohol, Smoking, Horse riding, Football, School trips, Nightclubs, etc infinitum!

Doc H.

 

[apprentice87]

Furthermore, if you think that the average householder is going to fork out several hundred pounds to have a "PROPER" EICR, then dream on......

How many people take their car for an MOT and are just delighted to hand over the money to be told that various components are merely "safe on the day of the test" Oh yes, they do it just for fun.

I will tell you what will happen; You will have all these "cut price" EICR merchants spring up, [EICR

 

[Doc Hudson]

Whilst we can all have what we consider to be excellent ideas to make ours lives and homes safer, as is often the case, there is a naivety among people about how practical a concept may be to implement and how cost effective it is to achieve a required goal. To enforce a legal requirement for PIR's would then have to raise the question about who can undertake the inspection, how is it recored and traced. How often is the test equipment calibrated. There used to be a black market of stolen MOT pads when they were just the A5 hand written forms. How will the EICR be controlled? force everyone to use a nationally agreed electronic form with unique serial numbers recored back with your home insurance provider? or just a hand written form signed by someone who considers themselves competent as per the current wiring regulations. If a homeowner has a valid EIRC say for 5/10 years, how do you prevent someone doing some DIY a week later wiring a light in the lounge with telephone cable? makes a mockery of your reduced insurance premium argument? Who would pay for enforcing this added bureaucracy. it is a nice idea but its too prohibitively expensive for minimal financial gain so business will not be very interested in implementing it.

Doc H.

 

[Monkeyboy]

Doc H

Hello to you....... You may have missed my point also . Whether the views of Shed69 are right or wrong , my point is why is there a need to google mot exempt vehicles ? The views of some of these members seem "I'm right and that's that" I believe we should listen to people's opinions, digest them and NOT try to prove them wrong. Because after all,its an opinion and not a FACT!

Mark

 

[Doc Hudson]

Doc HHello to you....... You may have missed my point also . Whether the views of Shed69 are right or wrong , my point is why is there a need to google mot exempt vehicles ? The views of some of these members seem "I'm right and that's that" I believe we should listen to people's opinions, digest them and NOT try to prove them wrong. Because after all,its an opinion and not a FACT!

Mark

Unfortunately Mark, I consider that you are the one to be missing the point. Any member is entitled to make whatever reference they consider appropriate to bring another side to a discussion. It was Shed69 who stated that an MOT was needed for insurance, which is factually incorrect not an opinion. Whether someone used Google or not is irrelevant, I am not sure if anyone actually has in this particular context? Based on your model of forum discussion and debate, no members are allowed to Google any information they deem relevant to a topic under discussion. If they do hold contrary opinions they must just listen and not comment or back up their opinions with any references sourced by Google. and they must never post any comments disputing any other persons opinions. As a forum, that model would not last very long as threads would only be able to consist of one opinion and no debate or discussion. Healthy debate and discussion is at the heart of a lot of learning and I for one will always promote it on the forum providing it remains polite and respectful. No posts on this thread have in my opinion stepped over that line. Don't forget much of BS7671 is open to interpretation and opinion.

Doc H.

 

[Monkeyboy]

Doc H I feel this thread is going off on a tangent.

Google can not prove an opinion wrong because it's an opinion and not a fact. You obviously didnt understand my last post or chose not to understand it. Either way you're right and I'm wrong because my opinion is not the same as yours!

Mark

 

[shed69]

Doc

Factually incorrect I agree but the only thing people can come up with to back up the mot thing is bloody tractors, isle of man tt racing and cherry pickers etc... Argument for arguements sake, and I think you'll find most of them have copied and pasted straight from google word for word and font for font so I don't know how you can say its not to be used !! It's a source of information, it's a bit like telling somebody about a regulation and then not been allowed to show them in the book...

All I am trying to do is suggest and put up for discussion is a way forward for safety in the home and workplace-why are people so against it? Think about this-if there was no such thing as a mot for cars then think about the state of cars etc that would be driving around on our roads.... Yes people begrudge paying for mot but the option is simple, if you don't want to pay for it then don't have one... The same principle could be applied to houses, after all houses and cars are probably the most owned potentially dangerous commodities in the country....

 

[Doc Hudson]

DocFactually incorrect I agree but the only thing people can come up with to back up the mot thing is bloody tractors, isle of man tt racing and cherry pickers etc... Argument for arguements sake, and I think you'll find most of them have copied and pasted straight from google word for word and font for font so I don't know how you can say its not to be used !! It's a source of information, it's a bit like telling somebody about a regulation and then not been allowed to show them in the book...

All I am trying to do is suggest and put up for discussion is a way forward for safety in the home and workplace-why are people so against it? Think about this-if there was no such thing as a mot for cars then think about the state of cars etc that would be driving around on our roads.... Yes people begrudge paying for mot but the option is simple, if you don't want to pay for it then don't have one... The same principle could be applied to houses, after all houses and cars are probably the most owned potentially dangerous commodities in the country....

It was Monkeyboy who suggested google should not be used, I was just commenting what a daft idea it is. In hindsight it may have been more prudent to open a new thread with your topic on home insurance and PIR's rather than adding onto someone else's thread about an upset customer due to a danger notice. I do not say the idea in principal is a bad one but more people die due to motor vehicle accident than electricity in the home accidents and the bottom line is the cost of setting up and administering the system,.

Doc H.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was made at 19:47 ----------

They're some argumentative people on this topic! Shed69 wants to find a way to make our homes a safer place. One death or injury is one too many!

Even Andy must agree with that!

My point was regarding argumentative people.The thread was aimed at making our homes a safer place.

Googling mot except vehicles to try prove a point is ridiculous in my book.

Mark

Doc HHello to you....... You may have missed my point also . Whether the views of Shed69 are right or wrong , my point is why is there a need to google mot exempt vehicles ? The views of some of these members seem "I'm right and that's that" I believe we should listen to people's opinions, digest them and NOT try to prove them wrong. Because after all,its an opinion and not a FACT!

Mark

Doc H I feel this thread is going off on a tangent. Google can not prove an opinion wrong because it's an opinion and not a fact. You obviously didnt understand my last post or chose not to understand it. Either way you're right and I'm wrong because my opinion is not the same as yours!

Mark

I did explain to you several posts ago that you were taking it off topic. As very few of your posts have much content relating to the topic in hand, mostly your apparent dislike for members to discuss things using whatever reference sources they choose, it could be said you are the main protagonists taking it further off both the primary topic of danger notices and the secondary topic of home insurance -vs- PIR's I consider it prudent to close this thread now as I feel it has run its reasonable course.

Monkeyboy I can only apologies that you dislike the way we allow members to reference their post how they see fit and suggest you either get used to it and debate the topic of a post rather than the methods others use to answer by, or find other forums that are more to your taste?

Shed69 please commence a new thread on the home insurance topic if you wish to discuss it further. Maybe adding a poll to see how many consider it a workable solution might be interesting?

Doc H.