S
Sylvia Else
No. The phone is via Optus cable, as is my Internet service.
Sylvia.
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
Tell Telstra to stop sending you dead trees.
No. The phone is via Optus cable, as is my Internet service.
Sylvia.
S
Sylvia Else
How much did you have to pay him?
Sylvia.
G
Grant
Dunno how much they charge, but it's legal. The electrician takes on the
workmanship 'guarantee' and puts his stamp on the meter (at least that's
how it was a while ago) as signoff.
I've done 200A industrial wiring that just needed to be looked at and
signed off by the sparky. Good systems in place on industrial sites,
nice big padlocks holding the power switch off.
Lotsa people do their own house wiring and only get caught out after the
place burns down and it gets looked at -- oops no insurance cover...
Grant.
S
Sylvia Else
In NSW, at least, it does not appear to be legal
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/hba1989128/s14.html
unless the sparky is on site and available for consultation while the
work is being done. It appears that a householder could do some of the
work while the electrician he is employing does another part, but it
would not be lawful to do the work first, and then get the electrician
to look at it later.
From a safety perspective, and as long as the electrician really does
look at the relevant parts of the work, I can't see what difference it
makes, but that's how I read the law.
Sylvia.
E
Epsilon
Sylvia said:
How does that come about under section 14?
R
Rod Speed
Sylvia Else wrote
Nothing, I did get him to do the meter box because that was too much hassle to do myself.
Basically he was a mate of a mate.
I later knew another couple personally who would have
done it for free because I did their computer stuff for free.
Nothing, I did get him to do the meter box because that was too much hassle to do myself.
Basically he was a mate of a mate.
I later knew another couple personally who would have
done it for free because I did their computer stuff for free.
S
Sylvia Else
14(2) unless you construe "where" in 14(2)(a) so narrowly that 14(2)(b)
makes little sense.
Sylvia.
S
Sylvia Else
Just for good measure, and in the same vein, it appears from this definition
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/hbr2004219/s11.html
and the associated sections of the act, that on a proper construction,
one cannot even change/clean the dust filter in one's airconditiong
system, but must call in a tech to do it.
Now, anywhere but Australia, one would question whether that was really
the intent, but these days, Australians seem to be prohibited from doing
pretty much anything they're not expressly permitted to do, so a
prohibition against doing something to the dust filter seems entirely
plausible. Unlicensed breathing is still legal, for the time being.
Also note the uncertainty regarding whether a typical split system is in
a building.
Sylvia.
G
Grant
Well I'm 'Mexican' and my info is decades old, I have done the industrial
bit, thought I'd be supervising the sparky at the time, but he was twice
my age, thus called the shots -- besides, he held the key to the OFF switch
padlock
Yes sir, no sir...Grant.
S
Sylvia Else
The electrician and the person would not be in an employer/employee
relationship in the normal sense, such that the employer can give
directions to the employee. The relationship in question would be that
of an person contracting to perform a particular service for another. If
the nature of that service includes performing the function of a
supervisor for the purposes of the act, then I can't see any difficulty
with that.
The legislation is generally about ensuring that work is competently
done, mainly in the interests of safety, and it seeks to achieve that
goal by requiring that persons qualified to perform the work are
involved in it. Yet section 14 clearly envisages that some of the work
will be performed by persons who are not qualified to do it completely
on their own. Further, that section envisages two levels of supervision,
depending on whether the person doing the work has a trade certificate
or not. The greatest level of supervision is required when the person
doing the work is essentially a layman, but even there it does not, in
my view, require that the supervisor be close enough to the work to
watch while each and every element is performed. Indeed, such a
requirement would make a nonsense of the sentence in brackets in 14(4)(a).
Sylvia.
E
Epsilon
Sylvia said:
Subsection 14(2) is not about that provision of services relationship. It
is about a relationship where the supervisor can and does give directions.
A sparky does not give directions to the person on whose site the sparky is
working, and a construction that pretends that it does run counter to your
own views about this the controlling nature of this legislation.
That is simply not true regarding subserction 14(2).
Not a layman, but an apprentice.
Oh, yes it, does - see paragraph 14(4)(c).
It's not a layman, but someone like an apprentice, being contemplated by the
provision. That is, someone who can be given directions, and where the
relationship between the supervisor and the person doing the work is such
that the work is controlled appropriately by the supervisor.
It distorts section 14 for the quite different relationships contemplated to
be recognised. That might be regarded as unfortunate, but the remedy is to
change the law. I doubt if the law would be changed to recognise that case.
G
Grant
Crazy -- and there's no guarantee the tech will do a proper job either.
We still allowed to run a vacuum cleaner?
You remind me of another silly new law, that I'm no longer allowed to make
my own ethernet cables? Or something? Since deciding that I had to buy
the tool to reterminate faulty storebought cable, I'm certainly not going
to buy cables that are worse quality than ones I can do myself. Though
my localnet's been shrinking down from eight to five machines, lots of spare
cable running around. But then, I'm renting, so none of it is permanent
wiring.
I know I can do what I like this side of the power plug, too. Or did that
change?
Grant.
S
Sylvia Else
I'll need to get back to you on that, though I'll have to read some more
legislation, and since I'm not a qualified lawyer, I may not be
permitted to do that.
That's news to me.
Or something? Since deciding that I had to buy
No, that still seems to be the case.
Sylvia.
E
Epsilon
Peter said:
It is completely true, but only when you are pushing the water from your
premises.
S
Sylvia Else
I wouldn't have thought that would lead to fires. No doubt it leads to
suddenly dead would-be power thieves, but in general, the attempted
bypass will either work, be completely ineffective, or will blow the
main fuse, depending on the particular incompetence of the perpetrator.
Also, the meter is usually in a metal box outside the house.
I don't know whether it would run backwards - it would depend on the
exact mechanism. But if it does, I wouldn't expect any payment to be
forthcoming, and sooner or later the billing anomaly would be flagged.
In the event that the billing system did issue payments (presumably
considered refunds), eventually the supplier would cotton on, and they'd
certainly ask for all the money back.
Sylvia.
S
Sylvia Else
If you both reverse the meter, and push water from your premises, then
the water supplier will charge you for the privilege. To get the meter
to run backwards, if it's capable of it, you have to do one or the
other, not both.
Sylvia.
T
terryc
Nope, they just assume that you have left a tap running and that the
meter has looped and bill you for the lot.
E
Epsilon
Sylvia said:
That would be fraud. The water supplier is not supplying water at all.
The meter doesn't work backwards like that. If it did, it would only reduce
the metered amount of water being supplied by the water supplier, but not
provide a way to calculate the water being supplied to the water supplier.
S
Sylvia Else
It was some years after I'd moved into my current property that I
noticed that the allegedly night-time tariff water heater was drawing
power during the day. Like a good citizen, I called Energy Australia,
and they came and undid what the previous owner had presumably done.
Clearly, Energy Australia hadn't noticed when the original switch was
made, and either no meter reader had happened to come when the heater
was running, or they were oblivious to the implications of that turning
wheel.
After doing the right thing, of course, I found that the tank wasn't big
enough to provide hot water during the day, and that we needed to be on
a more expensive tariff
Energy Australia indicated that they'd getaround to it in a couple of weeks or so (given that it required a new
switch to be installed). However, after I'd protested to someone more
senior that I'd done right by them and they could at least reciprocate,
it was fixed in a couple of days.
I'm not looking forward to it. At one point I considered asking for one
to be installed, but after running the numbers, it was clear that my
electricity bill would rise quite a lot. The peak-time rate here in
Sydney is so high that power drawn 24/7 (computers, refrigerator), which
is the cheapest to supply, costs significantly more despite the lower
off-peak rate. So I'll wait until a new meter is imposed on me.
Those who are financially stressed will no doubt change their usage
pattern. The rest may change for a while, but will probably slip back to
their current pattern in due course.
Sylvia.
S
Sylvia Else
They wouldn't be entitled to the money, but it wouldn't be fraud,
because there would clearly be no intent. Be interesting to see the perp
trying to sue to get it back.
If it's not capable of running backwards (but still allows water through
- it may well contain a non-return value), then reversing it would
result in the reading not changing when water is drawn, but the reading
would increase when water was pushed, so it would correctly indicate the
amount of water pushed (though the supplier would charge for it on the
assumption that it had been supplied). However, presumably the person
doing this would not be intending to push water to the supplier anyway,
so their water bill would drop to zero until someone noticed.
Of course, if it contains a non-return valve, then the perpetrator would
discover they've gone to a lot of unlawful trouble for no benefit, and
serve them right.
Sylvia.
Similar threads
