Landlords test certificate.

ban-all-sheds · 7 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
BAS is labouring the point that 433.1.204 gives a dispensation for a circuit wired in 2.5mm² cable to be protected by a 32A OPD (which in itself, would be non-compliant with 433.1.1) only if the circuit is "a ring final supplying accessories to BS1363". It is therefore his view that the moment a ring final is connected to something which is not "an accessory to BS1363" that dispensation is invalidated, so that the 32A OPD would not be acceptable.

And do you know why it is my view?

BECAUSE

THAT

IS

WHAT

THE

REGULATIONS

ACTUALLY

SAY.

And I know people don't like me writing like that but I despair of finding a way to get you to notice the point about what the regulations say. I'd like to find a way to stop you repeating your nonsense about it being my "interpretation", as if some how I am doing some kind of analytical reasoning and drawing a conclusion from that, when all I am doing is simply reading what the regulations actually say.

Ever seen anything like this?:

I being the person responsible for the design, construction, inspection & testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design, construction, inspection & testing hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief pretty much in accordance with what I think is probably what the people who wrote BS 7671:2008, amended to 2015, actually intended to say, but never did.

Because I haven't.

It matters not that you think that JPEL/64 intended something other than what they wrote - they wrote what they did and a CU supplied by a ring final, either on the ring or on a spur, does not comply. It really does not.

It matters not that you think it is safe, a CU supplied by a ring final, either on the ring or on a spur, does not comply. It really does not.

It matters not if you are correct in your assumption that JPEL/64 intended something other than what they wrote - they wrote what they did and a CU supplied by a ring final, either on the ring or on a spur, does not comply. It really does not.

It matters not if you are correct about the safety, a CU supplied by a ring final, either on the ring or on a spur, does not comply. It really does not.

ban-all-sheds · 7 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
Whether that is what the actual words of the regulation say or not

It is what they say.

Anybody who argues otherwise is dong so because they refuse to accept what they say, and want so much to act as if they said something else that they are prepared to pretend that the words printed in the regulations aren't actually there, or that there are other words which only they can see.

PBC_1966 · 7 Feb 2016

But what about this?

JohnW2 said:
However, as has been pointed out, it is even possible to satisfy BS7671 in relation to something which one feels is not-compliant with specific BS7671 regulations by invoking 120.3 if one can argue (as one certainly could in many of the cases we are discussing) that what one has done is no less safe than would be achieved by complying with the word of explicit regulations

deadshort · 7 Feb 2016

What about it ?

DS

JohnW2 · 7 Feb 2016

deadshort said:
What about it ?

It means what it says .... that it is possible to comply with BS7671, by virtue of 120.3, even if one has not complied with all the specific regulations within BS7671, provided one can demonstrate that what one has done is no less safe than it would have been if the specific regulations had been complied with.

Kind Regards, John

deadshort · 7 Feb 2016

Thanks john, that's made things a bit clearer ! Thank goodness you're so level headed, and patient with the rest of us

I'll sleep tonight.

DS

PBC_1966 · 7 Feb 2016

JohnW2 said:
provided one can demonstrate that what one has done is no less safe than it would have been if the specific regulations had been complied with.

So now all we need is for somebody to explain how fitting a non-BS1363 board with a BS1361 fuse or MCB is any less safe than if an FCU with an equivalent BS1362 had been fitted. I can't wait to hear the arguments for that.....

deadshort · 7 Feb 2016

Mm, may be John knows ?

Regards,

DS

deadshort · 7 Feb 2016

You'll have to ask John !

JohnW2 · 7 Feb 2016

JohnWtwo said:
Mm, may be John knows ?

If you read what the question asks, you would realise that you would need someone 'from the other side' to answer that question!

Kind Regards, John

JohnW2 · 7 Feb 2016

JohnWtwo said:
Thanks john, that's made things a bit clearer !

Hmmm - I'm quite sure that you were equally able to understand the 'original'!

Seriously, though, I think 120.3 gives us some insight into how 'they' feel about their regulations - that, unlike some people, they don't really care too much about whether people comply with every/word letter of what their regulations "actually say", provided that what is done is no less safe than would be achieved by fully complying with those words and letters. ... which, IMO, is a very sensible view, particularly given that the regs cannot possibly be 'exhaustive'.

Kind Regards, John

deadshort · 7 Feb 2016

Thanks you have answered my question.

JWtwo

ban-all-sheds · 8 Feb 2016

What if I were to assert that the intention of JPEL/64 is that 120.3 shall be used to cater for new inventions, not to allow an explicit regulation to be contravened because someone who doesn't like the regulation would rather do something different?

ban-all-sheds · 8 Feb 2016

PBC_1966 said:
So now all we need is for somebody to explain how fitting a non-BS1363 board with a BS1361 fuse or MCB is any less safe than if an FCU with an equivalent BS1362 had been fitted. I can't wait to hear the arguments for that.....

It would be an irrelevant argument, as the issue of whether a CU supplied through a ring final is safe or not is irrelevant.

433.1.204 does not say "Accessories to BS 1363 and anything else which the designer thinks are equivalent may be supplied through....". It really does not.

JohnW2 · 8 Feb 2016

ban-all-sheds said:
What if I were to assert that the intention of JPEL/64 is that 120.3 shall be used to cater for new inventions, not to allow an explicit regulation to be contravened because someone who doesn't like the regulation would rather do something different?

I would tell you that you were asserting something that the regulation doesn't "actually say" and, indeed, refer you to 133.5 which does say essentially the same thing, but in relation to "new materials and inventions".

Kind Regards, John

diynot

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.

Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

Landlords test certificate.

Similar threads