Electric shower

[Lurch]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 05:45:46 GMT, "BigWallop" strung together this:

If one of the clauses in the policy said 'any work carried out by non-qualified persons invalidates this policy' then that would do it. Insurance companies have nothing to do with Part P, I've no idea where you got this from. Insurance companies already have similar clauses in policies regarding security, if the insurance co. say that the alarm should be maintained by a NSI registered company then the policy is void if it isn't, this is exactly the same but doesn't have any mention in the building regs.

What's with this insurance thing, are you an insurance salesman?

But that's only where applicable, there are thousands of houses up and down the country that aren't to building regs but are insured.

[BigWallop]

But that's the whole point of these regulations. Your house will have to become part of the buildings regulations act in the very near future. Part P amendments are a very small part of the changes that are on the books. There is also talk, which is well on its way to become rules, of periodic whole house inspection becoming part of insurance coverage. So if you don't have the whole thing done, you won't get insurance. A bit like an MOT for your house. Insurances push the H&S issues. The H&S issues push building regulations. It always has, and it always will. Part P amendments are a very small part of it all.

People are still putting it down to costs, but it always has been part of the costs. An unqualified guy is still going to be cheaper than you, but is his work to the same standard, and is it as safe, that's the point. That's why the changes are being made. These changes aren't coming on their own. There are follow up amendments on the books already. And it won't be over till the fat lady sings. Don't take this one silly little amendment lightly, as it's only part of a whole load of changes still under discussion.

[Lurch]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 07:14:26 GMT, "BigWallop" strung together this:

But not if I don't do anything that's mentioned in the building regs.

That makes a bit of sense, still sounds a bit far fetched though.

Well, I'm glad they've brainwashed you. I'm still having no part of it, as far as I'm concerned it's a badly thought out scam.

[Peter Parry]

Is there? Where is the evidence for this? There is some evidence of increasing numbers of fires caused by temporary wiring such as extension leads - but Part P positively encourages people to use more of these rather than put in safer fixed wiring.

Where in the policy does it say this? Let me give you a clue - Corgis have been ripping people off for years - nowhere in your insurance policy does it state cover is limited to work carried out by Corgis. If a faulty gas fitting causes a fire the insurance companies don't come asking for your Corgi paperwork (assuming it has survived the fire).

How are they going to know if such a test has been carried out "Yes - it was done - the paperwork was in the room destroyed by fire". "Work? What work? I've had none done - must have been the ones before".

Where is the evidence for this statement? It wasn't mentioned in any of the consultation documents and the insurance companies have said nothing about it.

It is to do exactly that - its to drive the one man operations who do a lot of work for cash out of business. It is to drive them into working for bigger (easier to control) companies and provide a paper trail to make sure they pay tax and NI, that's all.

I assume you have no experience of fire investigation or insurance.

So unless a "qualified electrician" plugs in my kettle its warranty isn't valid?

You really have no idea of what you talk.

[BigWallop]

Then all I'm going to say is, wait and see.

[Mr Harry]

no its a 15 amp plug. the fuse is in the fusebox not in the plug.

in answer to the other posters question i have measured the cable and its far bigger than 2.5mm!

martin wasn't in the pub over the weekend but i asked his son to give me a call so hopefully ill have an answer later this week.

thanks for all the suggestions so far.

harry (mr)

[Bob Mannix]

I think you may mean that it is wired into the back of the socket (from what you said) and it's on a 30A ring main (I hope). If the socket is a spur of a ring main then you have a very dangerous situation as you will be overloading the spur cable quite substantially. If it is on a ring main you have a quite dangerous situation as you will be running the ring at full capacity and relying on the fuse/mcb accuracy (leaving aside other worries listed below).

Well, that's (a small) something, but it's the cable from the socket to the fuse box, the lack of proper earthing arrangements, the load on the socket circuit, the lack of a double pole isolation switch and everything else that reads like the little house of horrors.

[Lurch]

On 6 Dec 2004 02:28:17 -0800, [e-mail] (Mr Harry) strung together this:

Fuck off troll.

[Ronnie B]

I hope U mean the wire is bigger than 2.5mm and not the overall diameter! LOL!

[Pete C]

LOL! Is it an instant elecric shower connected to the cold water supply, or a 'power shower' which just pumps water that is heated in an external cylinder?

Whatever it sounds like you should get a competent electrician to check over your wiring!

cheers, Pete.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Assuming - probably incorrectly - that the shower wiring is the correct

6mm minimum, it wouldn't be possible to spur off a ring. You might manage it off the last socket on a spur or radial...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The chances of wiring correctly installed by someone who knows what they're doing giving problems that an insurance company might get involved in are near zero. Regardless of a bit of paper. And if the insurance company discovered that a fault which involved them was caused by faulty wiring or workmanship you might have some problems with a claim regardless of whether the correct paperwork was in place or not.