Bloody stupid light fittings

I have a set of "energy saving pendants" that have been used in over 10 new builds and extensions where they needed to be in place for the BCO/NHBC inspectors:-)

Ah - that's the trouble with the internet - no one can see the tongue in cheek.

Actually, it was the compulsory logging in that I objected to - I don't want to become a customer just to read someone else's drivel.

A bit like having to log onto a retail site to find out their prices :-(

tim

I'm going to go for changing the battens, if I stuff up this bodge I'll not have a fitting to put back when I move on

tim

Tell the agent that the light fittings are contrary to BS7671 and you require them to be replaced with BC2 fittings, or you will do it yourself and just keep saying "BS7671!" until they give up.

------------------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that they are supplied due to a change in planning regs and that all new/refurbished builds have these (or other non standard) fittings.

I doubt that the planning regs were changed to allow the fitting of (um) fittings that didn't comply with other standards

tim

I don't agree. The EPC is simply a "score". Having one done doesn't require anything to be changed.

I wasn't. I was shooting the system!

I have to put back those that were working when I moved in. I have an inventory showing two not working. Suggestions that they should be made working before I accepted the flat fell on deaf ears.

tim

It happens that Andrew May formulated :

It's not just me then :-)

Another thing I won't do.

There was someone on the radio yesterday extoling the virtues of some green house at the Ideal Home Show. She mentioned recycled glass worktops and said they weren't much more than ordinary ones.

I went to have a look and - guess what - they all want you to contact them for prices. Which is usually a dead giveaway for "Outrageously overpriced". Best I can find suggests they might be between five and ten times the price of postformed 40mm "ordinary" worktop, which I suspect is what the bulk of the population would consider standard.

The *point* is not for you, nor any of the sheeple. The point is for *them* to obtain personal information to sell. That's their business model.

I don't understand how the yoof are so un-caring about on-line privacy. I believe it's a major issue, and particularly for the low-attention-span yoofs.

For example, when they apply for jobs, they can *expect* to be googled, and have their FB profiles examined. Perhaps some of that stuff they were happy to broadcast doesn't look so cool now.

When people send me FB links,I just politely reply that I don't and won't have an FB account.

I think things have changed.

I was looking at a replacement kitchen for a property that I considered buying and I was amazed at the quantity of worktops that suppliers sold at

And that was before looking at the marble ones

tim

could

Nope.

As for twitter I was using a very similar SMS based system not long after Orange launched in 1994, just wish I could remember what it was called.

Their business model is selling advertising, and one which is apparently quite successful.

The yoof aren't that unsavvy. It's fairly easy to restrict what can be seen on FB, and I know yoof who do that.

Easy enough to restrict it, and TBH a photo of somebody pissed at a party doesn't tell you anything more than they're normal. Certainly nobody I know seems to be showing anything to worry about, and that's friends - their public views will be cleaner.

It's pervasive enough now among people I know that it's the default for eg holiday snaps, and they won't be public. Won't affect you if you don't want to see them, but I quite enjoy a few of them.

other side? Apart from that, why aren't people complaining to their politicians about the stupidity of BC3 and mention there's votes in it?

For sure; not what I meant to imply; I was just pointing out that a landlord getting an EPC done could maybe be forgiven for trying to make the effort to maximise his score, which is (allegedly) the point of the EPC regs.

Not that I as a landlord have fitted BC3s myself, or would consider doing so. I've never once has a prospective tenant show the slightest interest in an EPC.

David

Because BC3 are part of the "green" building regs. and, sad to say, there are currently far more votes to be lost by questioning anything badged green than there are to be gained. Bear in mind that there are now many young voters who were taught that they had to save the planet from global warming, but not taught the concept of cost-benefit analysis (let alone how to do one).

I do some repairs for a fairly sleazy bar locally, who quite rightly have a zero tolerance drug policy.

They have CCTV everywhere inc toilets (not cubicles). If they see any drug activity they send the security staff in.

Once they have obtained the miscreants name they Facebook him and immediately have a convenient list c/w photos of all his friends - who are targeted by the security staff & the info given to the police for intelligence.

I swear 80% of the druggies have no idea how they keep getting caught.

Nail hit firmly on head.

Building Regulations. A requirement for new dwellings from 2002 was that a certain number of light fittings should only be able to take lamps having an efficacy of >40 lumens/Watt.

When I moved into a new-build rented flat, one of the first things I did was to buy a box of a dozen pendant light fittings from B&Q, and replace the terrible, dull CF bulbs & BC3 fittings with better, brighter CFs. I kept the 'old' pendants & bulbs to be refitted when I moved out.

I suspect that the fittings do comply w/ BS 7671.

Given that one (theoretically) can't buy tungsten bulbs, and CFs are a lot cheaper, it's one of those requirements that gets 'overlooked' when I do a completion inspection.