Landlords test certificate.

[JohnW2]

OK. So you believe that it is reasonable for people to contravene the regulations because they think it's OK to use what they consider to be common sense when effectively amending the regulations to say what they happen to want them to say.

I suppose the simplest way to shut you up when you (incessantly) make statements like that would be simply to say "Yes, that's what I believe" - which would give you little more to say/ask. If you persist, I may well just do that.

However, the truth about what I believe is that is is reasonable for people to use their knowledge and common sense to make decisions about things which are not mentioned explicitly (as 'permitted' or 'forbidden') by the regulations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Is this term "strictly compliant" a sort of converse to the principle of using the term "slightly pregnant"? It either complies, or it does not. And this does not.

It means "strictly compliant with the words of the (non-exhaustive) regulations as far as they go". When the regulations are silent about an issue (neither explicitly permitting or forbidding), one has to look to knowledge and/or common sense, rather than the 'silent regs', for an answer. If it were legislation, we could turn to a Court to do that interpreting - but it isn't, so we can't.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The CU could contain a single 1A MCB, and it would make no difference, it would still contravene the regulations.

I have a feeling that you may be one of those people who would comply with a 20 mph speed limit around school gates at 3 am during the school holidays. Yes, it is "contravening the law", and yes, an over-zealous police offer who needed to 'up his score for the month' might give you a ticket if he 'caught you', but, even with legislation, let alone non-mandatory Standards/regulations there is IMO a need for common sense.

If it is acceptable to supply a double socket (at least a 20A potential load, possibly 26A) directly from a ring, or to supply it from the ring via a 13A FCU, then there is no rational reason why interposing an MCB (whether 1A, 10A, 20A or 50A) in the path between ring and socket should suddenly make it 'unacceptable'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Even if it is believed that it does not actually comply:

120. 3
"Any intended departures from these parts requires special consideration by the designer of the installation and shall be noted on the EIC specified in Part 6. The resulting degree of safety of the installation shall be not less than that obtained by compliance with the regulations."

 

[Iggifer]

If it is acceptable to supply a double socket (at least a 20A potential load, possibly 26A) directly from a ring, or to supply it from the ring via a 13A FCU, then there is no rational reason why interposing an MCB (whether 1A, 10A, 20A or 50A) in the path between ring and socket should suddenly make it 'unacceptable'

And as we all know, BS 7671 is not the be all, and end all. In this case, whilst far from ideal, I feel you would be on fairly safe ground to say that the work was safe. As you've said, the loading is technically limited to less than if you'd followed the regs to the letter, and just run a 2.5mm² cable to the shed and fitted a twin socket.

 

[JohnW2]

Even if it is believed that it does not actually comply: 120. 3 "Any intended departures from these parts requires special consideration by the designer of the installation and shall be noted on the EIC specified in Part 6. The resulting degree of safety of the installation shall be not less than that obtained by compliance with the regulations."

Yep, that too. I, for one, would have no problem in saying that the sort of arrangements we're discussing were "no less safe" than would be the case with designs that even BAS would regard as compliant.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

And as we all know, BS 7671 is not the be all, and end all. In this case, whilst far from ideal, I feel you would be on fairly safe ground to say that the work was safe. As you've said, the loading is technically limited to less than if you'd followed the regs to the letter, and just run a 2.5mm² cable to the shed and fitted a twin socket.

Quite so.

I don't really knock it, since it's one approach to life, but BAS seems concerned only, in a 'debating society sense', with whether something is totally compliant with the precise words of the (non-mandatory) regulations, without too much obvious concern for whether or not it is actually safe. I'd be interested to know how he would feel and react in relation to an erroneously-drafted regulation, the "actual words" of which were 'requiring' something which many/most people would regard as 'unsafe'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

We need to remember that rings are not a normal circuit. They were designed specifically to supply BS1363 accessories, and this is the only thing BS7671 allows. If you want to supply an accessory not to BS1363 and comply with BS7671 you must use some other circuit arrangement.

 

[JohnW2]

We need to remember that rings are not a normal circuit. They were designed specifically to supply BS1363 accessories, and this is the only thing BS7671 allows. If you want to supply an accessory not to BS1363 and comply with BS7671 you must use some other circuit arrangement.

As BAS keeps reminding us, that is what the words of BS7671 say (or, at least, is as far as those words go). It is silent on the question of whether anything other than 'accessories to BS7671' may be supplied by a ring.

Do you, like BAS, feel that all that matters is that one complies with the words which actually exist in BS7671, regardless of what one believes is reasonable/ sensible/ safe?

You presumably regard a spur from a ring final supplying sockets via a 13A FCU as being acceptable and compliant, but do I take it that you would regard it as 'unacceptable' if that FCU was replaced by, say, a 10A MCB? [or, perhaps even a 16A MCB, or maybe even (given that an unfused spur is allowed to supply one double socket) a 20A MCB?] If so, do I take it that the only reason you would regard those things as 'unacceptable' would be because of the words of BS7671, and not because you think that any of them would be any less safe than supplying one double socket with an unfused spur??

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure what sort of satisfaction my answer will give you but, no, of course it doesn't

At last we may be getting somewhere. So if it does not work then how can you have complied with 433.1.1?

(although, of course, if its the cable of a ring final then Iz ≥ In does not have to "work").

Really?

Where does it say that?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You really can't have it all ways, according to what suits you for a particular argument. If you want to say that the fact that something is not mentioned in BS7671 means that it is "not permitted", then, as stillp says, you would have to agree that pink-sheathed T+E is not be permitted. Those who wrote BS7671 presumably expect that readers will use their knowledge and common sense to realise that, for example, pink-sheathed T+E is not "non-compliant with BS7671" simply because it is not mentioned in BS7671 (which obviously cannot be, and does not attempt to be, "exhaustive").

You poor man.

You do, genuinely, have my deepest sympathy.

 

[JohnW2]

...(although, of course, if its the cable of a ring final then Iz ≥ In does not have to "work").

Really? Where does it say that?

What sort of attempt at 'cleverness' is this? Could you perhaps make your point in a way that I can understand it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK. So you believe that it is reasonable for people to contravene the regulations because they think it's OK to use what they consider to be common sense when effectively amending the regulations to say what they happen to want them to say.

I suppose the simplest way to shut you up when you (incessantly) make statements like that would be simply to say "Yes, that's what I believe" - which would give you little more to say/ask. If you persist, I may well just do that.

Well - it wouldn't really conflict with any of these previous statements:

I have to say that I don't really care what the regulations precisely say.

I really don't care what the regulations actually say.

I don't really care a jot what the regulations "actually say".
I'm perfectly happy to completely ignore BS7671
compliance with (any or all) of the 'regulations' in BS7671 is not mandatory.

However, the truth about what I believe is that is is reasonable for people to use their knowledge and common sense to make decisions about things which are not mentioned explicitly (as 'permitted' or 'forbidden') by the regulations.

So you believe that when an explicit exemption from a particular regulation is defined, that actually means that you can have anything you like qualify for the same exemption, just so long as you think it is reasonable and common sense?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

...(although, of course, if its the cable of a ring final then Iz ≥ In does not have to "work").

Really? Where does it say that?

What sort of attempt at 'cleverness' is this? Could you perhaps make your point in a way that I can understand it?

I wasn't making a point there - I was asking you where the regulations say that a ring final does not have to satisfy Iz ≥ In.

 

[JohnW2]

I wasn't making a point there - I was asking you where the regulations say that a ring final does not have to satisfy Iz ≥ In.

You obviously are trying to make a point. What is your view of what 433.1.204 has to say about "Iz ≥ In"?

Kind Regards, John