I'm not disagreeing with you, though the term 'fair use' seems somewhat discretionary. Surely it's fair use when quoting from a common list of paraphrased regulations on an EICR (which is what I want to do). It's not like I'm planning to replicate the book and make a profit out of it. What is the point in making us all attend a course on the latest amendments to BS7671 (and buy the overpriced book) if we can't quote something out of it when letting the client know what issues they have on the site? Afterall, that is what we're legally required to do and have been instructed to do when carrying out the work. It's a sad state of affairs when plagiarism takes precedence over electrical safety.  

no  problem quoting  within reason - and we do that on here quite often where a whole reg or paragraph from a standard  is quoted.

On here we are mostly cases 1 and 2

• • • research or private study;
    • If it is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation

In an EICR it will be mostly 2 or 3

• review or quotation;
• Where it is utilised for the purposes of reporting current events

From the British library guidance  on when you can copy chunks out of the library books.

www.bl.uk/.../fair-dealing-copyright-explained

"

As an exception to British copyright law, fair dealing is governed by Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which outlines three instance where fair dealing is a legitimate defence:

• • • If the use is for the purposes of research or private study;
    • If it is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation;
    • Where it is utilised for the purposes of reporting current events (this does not apply to photographs)

A statutory definition for fair dealing does not exist; it will always be a matter of fact, degree and interpretation in every fair dealing case. Nor is there a percentage or quantitative measure to determine fair dealing. The Intellectual Property Office lists the key factors used to determine the validity of whether a particular dealing with a work is fair as follows:

• • • Has the use of the work impacted negatively on the market for the original work? If the creator or owner has lost potential revenue through the re-use of their work, it is not likely to be fair.
    • Was it reasonable and necessary to use the amount of work that was taken?

"
So don't try and sell your reports as an alternative to the regs, and only quote what is reasonable and necessary - namely just the regs you wish to make draw to your customers attention, not the whole lot.

Brilliant, thanks.

So now we've established I'm not a plagiarist or fraudster, any ideas how I can efficiently 'replicate' a number of regulations so that I can paraphrase them for use on EICRs? You can probably appreciate that what I'm trying not to do is to manually type a large number of common regulations that have been updated.

Scott

If you use Tysoft EasyCert for your EICRs this has a facility to list what I think you are looking for. I have mine turned off  preferring to describe the non-compliance in simple language where and what the non-compliance is. For example "un-earthed light fitting in 2nd floor corridor outside room 201".

Why not simply, "C2 - contravenes Regulation xyz.a.b?

The customer will need to get an electrician to remedy the defect and that electrician (could be you) will know what it means.

that electrician (could be you) will know what it means
Maybe.  I fear not all electricians have that good a memory or carry the regs with them, or if they do they certainly do not read it.

And I think it is setting up the wrong sort of relationship with  the customer.

'you have something wrong with your system you need to pay to be fixed  but don't bother your pretty head about what it is, just fork out '

Next thing of course is all electricians are part of Rip -off Britain culture and the reputation damage.

I'm with JP though that  If at all possible a plain language explanation should be given.

' inadequate earthing of bathroom lights' is the sort of thing that semi technical folk stand a chance of grasping, as opposed to some elitist sequence of digits and dots that for most folk might almost as well be the numbers of the  Space corps directives from Red Dwarf. (*)

Mike

PS
* to save those who do not know.  the effort of looking, the SCDs are at about this level. One of those is ours - can you spot which one ?

(147. 'Crew members are expressly forbidden from leaving their vessel except on production of a permit. Permits can only be issued by the Chief Navigation Officer, who is expressly forbidden from issuing them except on production of a permit.')

(411.3.2.“Metallic pipes entering the building having an insulating section at their point of entry need not be connected to the protective equipotential bonding.” )

(7214. 'To preserve morale during long-haul missions, all male officers above the rank of First Technician must, during panto season, be ready to put on a dress and a pair of false breasts.' )

The third one (7214) is the correct one. The other two are obviously just made up.

Design considerations - there are three adjustable adjustment wheels for trimming and there are ten non-adjustable adjustment wheels as well. The non-adjustable adjustment wheels must be suitably adjusted before commencing the adjustable adjustments accordingly. Once premium adjustment of the adjustable adjustments are obtained then the non adjustable adjustments must be adjusted further until the premium setting is obtained

mapj1 said:

If at all possible a plain language explanation should be given.

Nothing wrong with that. So more like, "C2 - absence of main protective bonding conductor contravenes Regulation 411.3.1.2"? But then you are going to say that bonding needs to be explained, and so on.

I'm a bit wary of quoting individual regulations verbatim as a means of explanation  - in some cases regulations can only be read correctly in their wider context (including their position in the regulations, relationship with other regulations that might modify or provide exemptions, and general definitions).

For example read:

411.3.4 Additional Requirements for circuits with luminaires

Within domestic (household) premises, additional protection by an RCD with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30mA shall be provided for AC final circuits supplying luminaires."

Now ask yourself if that includes 12V SELV lighting running from a conventional transformer. From the words provided you could only conclude that it does - which would be completely wrong. Only by realizing that the regulation is in section 411 which only applies to ADS and SELV lighting comes under the mutually exclusive section 414 can it be understood correctly.

Certainly refer to regulation numbers - which should be taken by the initiated as a starting point - and by all means add a helpful 'plain English' explanation or summary to help the intended audience, but quoting individual regs out of context I fear risks giving the impression of definitive accuracy that isn't really there.

   - Andy.

That is an interesting point. Looking at the latest NAPIT coding book, someone who should know better has added lists of regulations that possibly might be breached by some observations. This is no use to man nor beast, but simply some idiot trying to appear to be clever. A nice plain English comment is always best. A technical person can translate this to a regulation number if they really want to.