29 replies to this topic

[jameswilson]

Quote

As you are aware, the review of PD6662, BS8243 and DD263 is complete and we are pleased to advise that these documents have been reissued 2010, are now available to purchase. You may note the implementation of the 2010 scheme has a two year period (parallel running) at which point the 2004 scheme will be withdrawn. As compliant product comes to market, the 2010 scheme will be available to use.

BSIA will continue to hold its successful technical road-shows across the country for members, providing a first hand summary of the changes and impact the standards will bring. The change guides for the above mentioned documents to assist members with understanding the differences to the superseded versions will be available within the next two weeks.



DD 263 is available from BSI at a cost of £44.

PD 6662 is available from BSI at a cost of £86.

BS 8243 is available from BSI at a cost of £172.

For discussion please see the Standard and regulations area in the trade areas.

[jameswilson]

PD6662: 2010 and 2004 are dual running until may 2012

[IAS]

James, I`m an idiot, can you tell me what this is and what it replaces?

[jameswilson]

6662 2010 replaces 6662 2004.
You need to use the 2010 when using the new 8243 etc

[alterEGO]

James, i will download(via SSAIB not EBAY!) them at some point and have a read but, what are the main differences between the 2010 and older standards? (I am just guessing you have already looked into it?)

[jameswilson]

http://www.thesecuri...ges-pd66622010/

I have done a summary of changes, in the trade only area. See the above link

James

[IAS]

jameswilson, on 08 June 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

......... when using the new 8243 etc

which is the "special" for police monitored systems?

[jameswilson]

yes the new bs that replaces DD243

[RFS]

Thanks for doing the summary James, really helpful..

[arfur mo]

the line -:

PD6662 said that any problems should be resolved within 21 days. 2010 changes this to 'as soon as practicable'



give licence to abuse by the unscrupulous, so is surely a backwards step?


Arfur

[IAS]

arfur mo, on 13 August 2010 - 10:06 AM, said:

the line -:

PD6662 said that any problems should be resolved within 21 days. 2010 changes this to 'as soon as practicable'



give licence to abuse by the unscrupulous, so is surely a backwards step?


Arfur

and conversly "as soon as possible" could be the same day not 21 days later so no actually it isnt "a backwards step"

[arfur mo]

IAS, on 13 August 2010 - 11:20 AM, said:

and conversly "as soon as possible" could be the same day not 21 days later so no actually it isnt "a backwards step"

if that is what it said (which it don't in the link text) then very true Paul - have you been filching my Ovaltine AGAIN on the side?


it's not 'as soon as possible'. it states 'as soon as practicable' in the text (i copied and pasted so if wrong blame James)

nothing ever stops anyone from doing the rectification/s the same day/hour even second, unless in practice prevented for some reason.

but now defined a ''as soon as practicable'' i.e. an undefined time margin and that is imho a very detrimental change to what was a far easier enforcement tool be used on the slovenly and/or rogue's - so why change it? lack of ability (or want) to enforce the original rule?

Arfur

[hpotter]

arfur mo, on 13 August 2010 - 10:06 AM, said:

PD6662 said that any problems should be resolved within 21 days. 2010 changes this to 'as soon as practicable

got 2010, but cant find ref to the above?


(must admit not exactly bedtime reading though)

[IAS]

arfur mo, on 13 August 2010 - 12:32 PM, said:

if that is what it said (which it don't in the link text) then very true Paul - have you been filching my Ovaltine AGAIN on the side?


it's not 'as soon as possible'. it states 'as soon as practicable' in the text (i copied and pasted so if wrong blame James)

nothing ever stops anyone from doing the rectification/s the same day/hour even second, unless in practice prevented for some reason.

but now defined a ''as soon as practicable'' i.e. an undefined time margin and that is imho a very detrimental change to what was a far easier enforcement tool be used on the slovenly and/or rogue's - so why change it? lack of ability (or want) to enforce the original rule?

Arfur

the whole industry is wrong, Alan Taylor is correct.





I should have known better.





.

Edited by IAS, 13 August 2010 - 03:37 PM.

[arfur mo]

do you not read anything PROPERLY? I Quoted James text direct, so if thats wrongly quoted -TELL HIM!

If not seems to me your the one with a probiem

Arfur

[IAS]

arfur mo, on 13 August 2010 - 04:31 PM, said:

do you not read anything PROPERLY? I Quoted James text direct, so if thats wrongly quoted -TELL HIM!

If not seems to me your the one with a probiem

Arfur

no one said you quoted anything wrong, I typed "possible" instead of "practicable" ............that was my error, though both words have the same meaning in this context.

doesnt alter the fact that the new wording actually tightens the time limit.

[jameswilson]

I'd agree the time limit is now tighter under most circumstances.

I'd agree the time limit is now tighter under most circumstances.

[Cubit]

arfur mo, on 13 August 2010 - 10:06 AM, said:

the line -:

PD6662 said that any problems should be resolved within 21 days. 2010 changes this to 'as soon as practicable'



give licence to abuse by the unscrupulous, so is surely a backwards step?


Arfur

Only if you want it to be.

Lets suppose that the customer is not available for the next 22 days. Therefore problem cannot be resolved so installer is in breach of old rule. Not their fault so what would you suggest?

[arfur mo]

Cubit, on 13 August 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

Only if you want it to be.

Lets suppose that the customer is not available for the next 22 days. Therefore problem cannot be resolved so installer is in breach of old rule. Not their fault so what would you suggest?

yes there is always exceptions but that is catered for in the word 'exception', in those impossible cases they can are usually covered with a letter of notification and signed for agreement, take water damage or a fire, you can't always restore the protection to the same level 'as was' until the buildings damage has been repaired, so the client signs and is told to advise the insurers (hopefully) of the situation.

Insurance co in turn often watch and usually follow up to see if the situation has been resolved, or keep hitting client for a temp premium until done.

having the 21 day limit imo better prevents abuses of using those 'exceptions' to wriggle out of responsibilities, surely more than using the term 'practicable'.

just way to easy to abuse, could end up its was not practicable "because the engineer was playing a golf tourney and it would contravene his human rights to command he leaves that and attend to rectify', overly excessive example yes, but you know what i am saying.

what i think won't ever change anything, but we will all see what happens in real life as it is more abused, personally i think it favours the rogue more than the honest trader or protecting clients.

Arfur.

[Cubit]

jameswilson, on 13 August 2010 - 06:21 PM, said:

I'd agree the time limit is now tighter under most circumstances.

How?