Search results

When carrying out periodic inspection and testing why test between live conductors at all? I always agree this as a limitation beforehand. It just wouldn't be feasible otherwise. If I go around disconnecting loads everywhere there is a chance I would introduce a fault reconnecting them, or in...

Only if you disregard the definition of an RCD. I'll grant that there are no RCCBs in the DB, however.

Amen brothers.

I'm sorry but no matter how quick and easy the job and nearby I don't think £30 is a reasonable expectation for a call-out. It simply wouldn't be profitable.  I'm all out of scoobs for the day but I concur with your post. 

I live in a deprived area and charge more than that for a call-out. ****  EDITED AND SPLIT FROM ANOTHER THREAD **** In an attempt to keep the other thread on topic, numerous posts from this thread; have now been spilt onto a separate topic, as it appears to be getting away from the OPs...

In the south of Ireland if the DSO (ESB) do an emergency disconnection they require the installation to be recertified before they will reenergise.

There is actually strong evidence now that lone working is always a risk, and whilst many of us frequently do it, we perhaps shouldn't. (Even if there isn't live working; working at heights etc.)

It was introduced with the 17th Edition. Definitely a sensible change in my opinion.

Like the rest of the world has done for decades.

It wasn't the 3rd Amendment. It came in with the 17th from the outset.

It is in fact required by the Regulations that it is connected to the means of Earthing.

You can used a wired interconnect for the smoke detectors, but every CO detector must be RadioLINK. The reason for this is the number the CO detectors send out are recognised by the switch as CO. I was told this by Ei/Aico people themselves.

But you do (should) know, as it is the law. They must do it, and you should therefore expect it without being told that it will happen.

Because that's not how the scheme operates: YOU deduct tax from your subbies and provide them with the requisite paperwork for this. However the main contractor still deducts it from the entire payment to you. You simply offset the tax he has taken against the tax you are stopping from the...

I'm aware of that. That's why I stated "if eligible".

No, because you as an organisation (a sole trader is still defined as an organisation within HMRC) are selling the labour at whatever cost. It is irrelevant how many different workers are actually providing this labour which you are selling. Therefore the labour aspect of your invoice is taxed...

What you're forgetting Evans is that it's not you as an individual who is being taxed but you as a business/company. Therefore if others are working for you their part of the labour charge paid to you by your main contractor is still subject to CIS. Essentially you are acting both as a...

Actually, the builder was correct. All labour should have been taxed at source and then you deduct from your subbies. The subbies don't pay twice - they invoice you for the full amount and you pay that minus the tax.

It is worth remembering, however, that the Notes on the EICR do specifically state that any lack of additional protection where it is now required must be coded. The severity of the code, of course, is at the discretion of the Inspector.

No-one appears to have mentioned one important fact: Not only is a lack of a 230V warning label not a C2 observation - it isn't a breach of any Regulation whatsoever and therefore cannot be coded as such. There is no and has been no requirement for such a label.