Do I need to rewire my house?

I don't think there's any dispute here. Nobody is calling your integrity into question: as a member, by necessity, of an organisation, you are required to obey their rules, and are so doing. No problem there. The question is whether their rules display any congruence with reality, or merely with their own best interests.

It is the behaviour of organisations, including governments, which are vested with any kind of power which is being questioned. While once they might have been expected to display some concern for the best interests of those from whom their power is ultimately derived, this no longer seems true.

Misrepresentation of remedial work required, in the direction of increasing the cost to the customer, is simple theft. Again, nobody is accusing you of that, you are simply obeying orders. We are free to question those orders.

The message from "Stephen Dawson" contains these words:

Easy in ours - it's right over the meter cupboard.

Doesn't make any difference - bathroom bonding is just cross-bonding. No requirement to take it back to the CU.

This is really my point - that the various trade organisations are gilding the Lilly. They claim to act for the consumer but in reality simply try to generate income for all of their members by requiring unnecessary work under the spurious cover of "safety".

Which shouldn't happen. If you make a balanced decision based upon your analysis of the situation then your trade organisation should be supporting you, not requiring you to act against the best interests of your customer.

Of course not, and I suggested no such thing.

I explained that your categorisation of these bonding omissions was not realistic because it isnt. I am not implying it is a deliberate mislead, as you've explained its just what you were taught. But its still misleading, and you can leave yourself legally liable if you misdescribe a situation in order to obtain a job. The Theft Act 1968 makes obtaining goods by deception illegal, and goods includes money in that case. So if you misled a client and obtained a job thereby you could be placing yourself in unsafe waters.

I am not saying youve done this, but am raising your awareness of what is going on. Just because a trade body has taught you something doesnt make it factual, nor morally defendable.

thats your concern. You may notice I'm not the only one raising this point. Hopefully this thread will prove educational.

NT

I understand your conflict, with questions over what really are the safety consequences, and what direction you ought to follow. I guess it would take a discussion of the safety issues around bathroom equipotential bonding to get this clear.

Ultimately youre required to follow the law, and in the eyes of the law 'he told me to' and 'he taught me wrong' are no defence. I mentioned the Theft Act to maybe help make a bit clearer what are the issues involved.

Personally I have zero sympathy for tradespeople who try to rip me off, as you may have noticed, and the first opportunity to put one in the dock I will be most tempted. I'm not saying youre one of them, but there is a problem you need to be aware of.

NT

I think your beef with the bonding is should be with the 51 persons who form the IEE/BSI Technical Committee JPEL/64 who write BS7671, and the others that support it, such as the HSE, not with the various bodies who assess people to carry out the work correctly and safely.

I think I have made my point, yes there are good and bad persons in every field of work, from paperboy to surgeon, and we all have rules, principles and procedures to follow, e.g. would you use an unqualified dentist? I know I wouldn't. My point is that the NICEIC and ECA plus others are not infallible, but give some form of redress for the work carried out by their registered members in the case of the ECA, and Approved Contractors in the Case of the NICEIC.

I am now intrigued at the statement regarding the Theft Act, because I do not see how I can be obtaining goods by deception when the service is to provide supplementary bonding, which should have been installed when the property was built in 1987 being a PME supply, and wasn't.

A little strong perhaps.

Any way I think we may have done this to death now, and others looking in can now form there own opinion, and has been a pleasure to have a sensible discussion.

Regards

Steve

then I think clear communication has not occurred.

NT