New Electrical Regs - Again

Page 5 of 10  


"Steve" wrote

And what value do you think should be placed on that? Couple of shillings & threppence??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Think I'd rather put up with some government interference which has no chance of being rigorously enforced rather than resort to suing someone - where only the lawyers would win.
--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
derek wrote:

No, the GSI&U regulations do not forbid DIY gas work and do not make use of CORGI registered operatives mandatory unless the house is being rented or the operative is paid.

Agreed (with the emphasis on "ish"!).

I think poisoning the water will be an amazingly unusual result of DIY gas work while not following plumbing regs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:32:09 GMT, Ronald Raygun

Yes I understand that. I work with lab gases at work but am not a CORGI.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Ever used a piece of old gas pipe on a potable water supply?
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
derek wrote:

So how is "a neighbour doing DIY gas work" "controlled under the CORGI scheme"?

That's a pretty amazingly unusual thing to be doing, but not impossible, I'll grant.
What would happen? How old? Lead? Are you on about lead poisoning, i.e. the reason lead is now frowned on for water pipes, or are you hinting at something nastier, like poisons in the gas becoming absorbed in the gas pipe material and subsequently leaching out when it is recycled as a water pipe? Would that have to be lead too or does copper also act like a sponge for those poisons?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:35:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun

I think somebody else said that.

I had a stock of stripped out, used 15mm and 22 mm pipe at the back of the garage. Which over the years I had been re-using indiscriminately. Plumbing used to be my hobby. :-)
One day we had a plumber in and he said I never re-use copper pipe, no matter how long it's not been used 'cos there's chemicals in gas that adsorb onto the surface of the pipe and taint drinking water indefinitely.

Not lead, just the stuff in gas.
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
derek wrote:

I'm afraid you did. The evidence is right there in black and white.
Somebody else (Dave Plowman) raised the point "Suppose a neighbour decides on some DIY gas work", to which it was you who retorted "That's already controlled under the CORGI scheme". I demurred.
I now take it you agree that it is not.

Fair enough. Did he make clear whether he refrained from doing this because it was a regulation, or just practice derived from bitter (excuse the pun) experience?
Must have been a very educated plumber, to use a word like "adsorb".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:30:31 GMT, Ronald Raygun

I didn't recognise that line as one I had posted.
I did say "controlled under the CORGI scheme"? but not the rest
You said "No, the GSI&U regulations do not forbid DIY gas work"
But I had never said they did.
The meaning I intended to convey was that the CORGI scheme restricts working with gas to competent people, that is a measure of "control" and that I saw as reasonable considering the possible dangers of working with gas. It's about as far as I would want to go. The new changes go much further in scope in areas where the danger to the public, neighbours etc is nigh on zero.

No, I regard the restriction to competant people as a measure of control.
I am not qualified according to the regs but I have experience of gas and vacuum installations in medical and lab systems. I would regard myself as competant to install my own gas hob for instance and in the past I have done so. A neighbour in a 27 year old house had smelt gas on and off for years and had called the gas board out on numerous occasions. Recently, she had a new kitchen installed and it was discovered that a solder fitting on a gas pipe had never been soldered, just pushed together. This had been done by a professional installer! I don't know if the CORGI scheme goes back that far.

No, just experience.

From what I hear there are nowadays a number of well educated plumbers, but I don't know the precise word he used.
At a bathroom showroom yesterday I was told the bath I wanted was out of stock but that wouldn't really make any difference, and the manufacturer will still "allow me to order one"! because there is not a plumber in the locality with any availability before christmas. My personal plumber friend has had a heart attack. ;-(
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

any
me
stretcher!
The micro management culture provides low grade jobs for the otherwise unemployable and performs the double purpose of raising revenue and depressing the unemployment stats.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In fairness, as discussed a while back, what is being proposed here has been the status quo in Australia for ages. In the USA, land of the free, in most states you cannot submit the simplest structural calculations to your local BI unless they are stamped by a PE (Professional Engineer), yet when I was a BCO there were very many people with no formal qualifications who were perfectly able to produce calcs for loft conversions, through rooms etc. But just because other countries do certain things doesn't make them sensible
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A requirement for this would make sense: it would pick up the fact that the lighting had not been rewired since the 1920's and was now lethal; the current proposals do nothing about existing substandard installations.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That would certainly be a good idea - though I can't help feeling it might not be a vote winner for the party that introduced that rule.
Possibly only a few votes at stake, however some MPs will have constituencies which have many older properties - and if you test to the 16th edition wiring standard then it might fail earlier standards, even though those standards do not necessarily present a hazard.
However, Labour have certainly sacrificed a lot of good feeling by introducing this lousy scheme.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If this is so, he doesn't need an electrical certificate - he needs a decent accountant. We'd all like to pay less, equally there are lots of legal ways to cut your tax bills.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well spill da beenz den. How! I've already got a covenant in favour of the local church, don't need any more of them.
The obvious option in this selected instance, bartering, is not an option any more because of the issue of the electrical certificate.
Providing we're both paying higher rate tax (And accepting therefore we've already had some income at lower rate) I can't see where my calculations are wrong.
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Derek

Home office, dividends to wife, parents/children.

Why can't you still barter?

Even with full VAT + higher rate + NI. I make the tax mans cut of every additional 1 earnt only 55.5%.
The current government is based from top to bottom on lies and deception (mainly to avoid the impractical laws they introduce) why don't you just copy their example and do what you have always done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Home office - the local government can charge you the uniform business rate for use of home or part thereof as business premises, because you fall into the business rate arrangement which shopkeepers and others have to dedicate some of their money to. That legislation is there already:
http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/busrats/guide/02.htm
Dividends to wife, parents/children - haven't you heard about S660? With that power (which has been on the statute books since 1936) the Inland Revenue can (and have recently) pretend that the income actually belongs to the worker and not those to whom it was paid. Result is a backdated tax bill for the individual with several 0's on the back end.
IT contractors have been particularly badly hit with S660, one example recently put the tax bill at 42,000 owed. Check the following story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2988881.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2829781.stm
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"PoP" wrote | Home office - the local government can charge you the uniform business | rate for use of home or part thereof as business premises, because you | fall into the business rate arrangement which shopkeepers and others | have to dedicate some of their money to.
And once you are labelled for business rates many councils will then follow up checking whether you have a waste disposal contract, either with them or with a private contractor. Business rates don't include waste disposal.
Then the water people want to put you on a business water meter ...
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Owain wrote:

For info: In Canada one can claim against income tax that percentage of your home expenses that you can fairly attribute to being self employed or operating a business (or part of it) from/at home. But only if you first make a profit; that percentage cannot create or increase a business loss. (I guess the rationale is that you have to live somewhere and if you decide to have a home office, a storeroom, meet clients, use the phone and internet etc. at home to conduct business then you can claim 'Reasonable' expenses against taxable income to the federal and provincial governments for the part use of it.
When it comes to the the municipal classification of the property and whether to charge business taxes it's not a problem AFIK because the percentage of the home used is usually pretty small e.g. typically 10 to 12 per cent, say, of the total floor area. Also home based business facilities are generally used for a very small percentage of time; typically less 20% of a 24 hour day, depending on the type of business!
Also it would be pretty ridiculous if a visiting potential customer to my home said "May I please use your bathroom" and that caused me to be business taxed municipally for water. Just about as ridiculous as giving that customer a cup of tea or coffee (or even something stronger! Maybe some home made wine?) and then claiming that my premises are now a restaurant/cafe serving refreshments or are a wine making operation. The type of "Business use of a percentage of the home" does favour 'white collar' workers. What does get undesirable attention is the family fixing up cars in the backyard or the retiree refinishing furniture in their basement or garden shed and making a bit of noise about it! And then there are the people who have 'permanent' yard/boot/junk sales going on. Not 'every' Saturday please! BTW 'Splitting' one's income with a spouse or other member of the family is a RECOMMENDED way of reducing income tax here. It is even mentioned as a 'Tax Tip' in some CCRA (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) previously dubbed 'Revenue Canada', publications!
While one may feel that CCRA just try to give you the feeling they are on your side CCRAs mandate or code clearly states, "Taxpayers may arrange their affairs to minimize the tax paid". Trouble with all this regulation is that one starts running your business in a manner which has to take into account all the tax rules and or other legislation. As an example; if I lease a vehicle as opposed to buying and depreciating one against the business which is the most favourable from a tax viewpoint? OR: Shall I hire two casual employees daily for half a day each or one person full time, which brings into play whether they are of equal competence versus the work available, and 'I don't care if they get enough hours to qualify for Unemployment Insurance at end of the busy season'; or do I? If I employ my son/daughter then ...... ?
And obviously one can't keep pigs in the back garden in a residential area!
Since it is claimed that, in Canada, 80% of the jobs are provided by "Small Business" the complexity of regulation is IMHO disincentive to small business persons; even when they are attempting to be legal and ethical.
As a personal opinion against 'excessive' taxation and regulation (not zero taxation), probably all of it meant with good intent, and as a footnote, see the uk.d-i-y and other 'handy persons' news groups, I estimate that if one can do ones own repair/construction/plumbing/electrical work oneself, even using/buying all new materials at normal retail, that it can cost 40 to 50% less than contracting that work. The person/company doing the work, say, being subject to taxes and regulations that increase the difficulty of doing and consequently their costs charged to you.
If one can recycle used materials, again using one's own labour and time, it is even cheaper, estimated at 30% or even less. And, in my opinion it's at the point where it has become in many cases a complete disincentive. It's part of the attitude and a factor where consumers will say "Aw to heck with it, chuck that in the dumpster/bin and buy a new one!" (from China!). That buy new can reduce the work available which in turn reduces local economic activity.
However these days the UK seems to be a pretty prosperous place, compared to 50 years ago? And consumers seem content to pay high costs?
Anyway. I'm shortly retiring, at age 70; so forgive my rant! Terry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

From the outside that may look to be the case. However one of the things this current Labour government have excelled at is manipulating the media - both internally and externally. The truth is so much different to the fiction seen from afar.
Before coming to power Labour claimed, rightly from facts which were present at the time, that the previous Tory administration had introduced about 55 new taxes (I admit that figure may not be quite accurate as I don't recall the exact figure - but it's somewhere close). That was in a 19 year period of office from 1978 to 1997.
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/business/articles/timid67017
During Labours 6 years of office since 1997 they have managed to introduce 60 new taxes - many of them by stealth. And as is their way, they have introduced paving legislation (I think that's what it is called) which basically translates to them being able to introduce and change tax -and other - laws without introducing them to parliament where they can be openly discussed and voted upon.
Gordon Brown (chancellor) has been quite famous for triple accounting in his budgets, where the same numbers get counted multiple times in order to make the numbers he wishes to make known. The current story (from the Home Secretary David Blunkett) is that we are recruiting more police and teachers than ever before. That may be true, but it sure would put matters into perspective if they admitted the numbers that were leaving were also higher than ever before.
Another thing Gordon did in the early days of his chancellorship was to quietly sell off the UKs gold reserves. We used to have about 17% reserves at the time he came to power - we now have closer to 7%. Which means that when the UK economy does fall into trouble we haven't got money in the bank to help us out of crisis:
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~netking/brown.htm
Amongst other things they promised in their manifesto that during this current parliament there would be a free vote put to the people of the country about further European integration - as in ditching the pound and replacing it with the Euro so that there was a common currency across the European Union. But because there has been much public opposition they have quietly ditched the idea and refuse to discuss when the vote might take place.
It goes on and on and on. They give politicians a bad name, and that's saying something.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Because the certificate would be proof positive of a Vat fraud and a fraud against the business.

I don't personally know the detail of how the individual taxes are applied, where the limits are but at the very least there's excise duty on road fuels, vehicle excise duty, "new car tax",and council tax, as well as all the "nickle and dime" permits, licences, stamp duties, and charges (OPRA etc). to go towards the 80%.

Good idea
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.