BS7671 2006 vs 2008

[Paul_C]

I'm afraid that while you may feel you have a case in court the LABC will simply refer to the current BS7671 17th edition regulations as the 'amended ... equivalent standard'.

There is nothing in law which says you have to work to any version of BS7671. The same non-statutory Approved Document for Part P which refers to compliance with BS7671 as being one way of complying with the Building Regulations also clearly states that this is not the only route to compliance, and even cites specific alternate standards which - "In the view of the Secretary of State" - would satisfy the Building Regs.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

thats true, but do you know anyone who has done this?

I think you'd have to be brave or foolish to use lesser known standards.
You can just smell the amount of defensive arguement you'd be involved in with BCO trying to defend wiring to German/Greek/Indian etc regulations.

Big Big headache and surely not a sensible approach for most DIYers.

Sticking to current UK regs for a UK designed house in the UK would probably be the path of least resistance and the way to an easy job

 

[riveralt]

I'm afraid that while you may feel you have a case in court the LABC will simply refer to the current BS7671 17th edition regulations as the 'amended ... equivalent standard'.

There is nothing in law which says you have to work to any version of BS7671. The same non-statutory Approved Document for Part P which refers to compliance with BS7671 as being one way of complying with the Building Regulations also clearly states that this is not the only route to compliance, and even cites specific alternate standards which - "In the view of the Secretary of State" - would satisfy the Building Regs.

Failure to comply with the Building Regulations is a criminal offence and local authorities have the power to require the removal or alteration of completed work that does not comply with these requirements.

The person carrying out electrical work that contravenes the Building Regulations can be fined up to £5,000 for the contravention, and £50 each
day the contravention continues. Householders may also encounter problems selling their property if work carried out does not comply with the Building Regulations. The householder is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all building work, including electrical work, complies with the Building Regulations.

You pays your money you take your chance


Your only defence is that your installation met or exceeded the Fundamental Principles for electrical safety.

Approved document P specifically states that the Secretary of State considers adherance to BS7671 17th edition as as means of acheiving this.

 

[deejaybee101]

HI All,

Thanks again for your help with this, it is much appreciated.

I have attached the full detail of the correspondance to date- hopefully the images are clear enough, but if some details are needed and obscure I can clearly provide them

Does this help shed some light on a possible way forward?

Kind regards,

djb


Letter from LABC

Letter from LABC

• deejaybee101
• 27 Mar 2010
• 1

"Inspection" report from LABC contractors

Result of LABC "inspection"

• deejaybee101
• 27 Mar 2010
• 1

Cert P1

Cert P1

• deejaybee101
• 27 Mar 2010
• 1

Cert P2

Cert P2

• deejaybee101
• 27 Mar 2010
• 1

Cert P3

cert p3

• deejaybee101
• 27 Mar 2010
• 1

Cert P4

cert p4

• deejaybee101
• 27 Mar 2010
• 1

 

[riveralt]

Its a bit difficult to see all the details and test results, but it does seem that the LABC are only complaining about the EIC page 1 entry refering to BS7671 2006.

Zs results seem to comply as do Insulation resistance

Maybe if he had entered BS7671 2008 on the certificate they would be happy

 

[riveralt]

The short circuit capicity for over current device on page 4 is missing - but they haven't mentioned that in their letter.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

It looks like it has been produced by someone who is not a currently practicing electrician. Maybe a spark out of retirement. I think that has what has raised questions at the labc. The fact that the cert is on a standard form doc (nothing wrong with that) is unusual as most will put it on a carbonised one from the local wholesalers or the one issued by thier approval body be NICIEC or any of the others.

If he had put 2008 I believe it would have been acceptable. But now they are asking for his qualifications so as long as he has some ( which I a sure he has) then all he needs to do is produce another cert and send that with his quals copy certs and every thing should be ok I think.

Martin

 

[nozspark]

As said above, he has put that he's installed IAW BS7671:2001 (2006) and the forms he's used are for 16th ed installs....

Download the 17th ed forms from
http://www.theiet.org/publishing/wiring-regulations/forms/formspdf6.cfm?type=pdf
and get him to make them out again.. with the correct dates and ADS instead of EEBADS

If you send these off with a covering letter stating that he'd mistakenly filled out the wrong forms and put the wrong date in they may accept them without a problem...

Also get him to fill out the "domestic installer" forms rather than the "multiple contractor" form

 

[ColJack]

he ticked "New install" for a start.. not very good considering it's an allteration..

 

[Paul_C]

thats true, but do you know anyone who has done this?

Not personally, but there have been several cases cited on the IET forum.

You can just smell the amount of defensive arguement you'd be involved in with BCO trying to defend wiring to German/Greek/Indian etc regulations.

The Approved Document clearly states that two of those standards are to be considered acceptable as meeting the Building Regs. Surely that would be the only argument necessary, given that the suggestion of following BS7671 comes from the same document?

Failure to comply with the Building Regulations is a criminal offence and local authorities have the power to require the removal or alteration of completed work that does not comply with these requirements.

Yes, but as failing to comply with the Building Regs. is a criminal offense that means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. As the LABC in this case seems to be adopting the usual approach of failing to fulfill its role of inspecting after notification, what evidence could they have?

Approved document P specifically states that the Secretary of State considers adherance to BS7671 17th edition as as means of acheiving this.

And it also specifically states (a) that there is no obligation to follow any of the guidance provided in the document, and (b) that two dozen other standards are also, in the Secretary of State's view, considered as equally acceptable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I would agree with BAS although the link failed when I tried it.

Take the ) off the end.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Failure to comply with the Building Regulations is a criminal offence and local authorities have the power to require the removal or alteration of completed work that does not comply with these requirements.

Indeed it is.

Would you like to testify on oath in a court of law that an installation done to the 16th is not reasonably safe?

Approved document P specifically states that the Secretary of State considers adherance to BS7671 17th edition as as means of acheiving this.

No it does not.

 

[deejaybee101]

Thank you all again- some very interesting points!

To answer some specific points:

Andprk- Two RCD's, one lighting, one sockets. (and only a shaver socket in the bathroom, and a ringmain spur to the boiler, no shower)

Bongos: I have heard this once before- do you have a reference I could quote to them that states that LABC should pay for the test and inspection? *added* it looks like section 1.26 in http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf does indeed state the LABC should take the cost of testing and inspection- can someone confirm my interpretation is correct?

BAS: Interesting post, so looking a bit deeper, on the current planning portal, (updated, slightly ironically, in 2006!) part P http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf paragraph 0.1 and 0.2, P7: "In the secretary of states viewthe requirements will be met by adherence... BS7671:2001" That would appear to be a worthwhile point to make! However: Does paragraph 1.4 on P10 then require that any work is done to the latest regs...?

MartinXXX: He is a spark out of retirement, hence the last time he was an electrician capable of certifying his own work was 2006. It was my (naive!) understanding that essentially anyone can do the work, but then LABC need to inspect to confirm the appropriate standard- is this not correct? In this case their appointed "inspector" has seen "2006" and appears to have gone no further to determine if it is still safe and appropriate.

Nozspark: He's not currently practicing as an electrician, and hence no longer able to cert his own work to the 17th, which was where I was hoping LABC would come in...

Coljack: yes, that slightly surprised me- what was done was a replacement CU, and completely replaced lighting wiring plus a few additional external lights. I could see that might count as either a "new" or "update" depending on how you look at it. What's the definition of each?

Riveralt: I agree, the interest here appears to be focussing on the "2006" rather than the quality of the installation as indicated on the report. This clearly then makes the system open to abuse by Applicants simply completing the form and quoting "2008" as the Standard adhered to; I was under the impression that the latest revisions to the Building Regulations were adopted to prevent this kind of abuse and to involve the Local Building Control Dept. at a practical level

So to summarise it appears that:

- The current Approved document P indicates that 7671:2001 is probably still fine depending on one's interpretation of Paragraph 1.4, P10 in App Doc part P.

- There are no glaring omissions from the work with regard to 2008 regs that could possibly have been determined from the installation certificate provided (e.g. installation of a hardwired fire detection system or something) The wiring is the correct colour, and an addtional RCD on the lighting circuit are the only two items that I can see in the posts above that would have impacted the installation, both of which apear to be ok in this install.

- The contractor used by the LABC to "inspect" the work has been fixated on the "2006"- was this because he ticked "new installation" on the certificate?

is that broadly correct?


Thanks again all!

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

The Approved Document clearly states that two of those standards are to be considered acceptable as meeting the Building Regs. Surely that would be the only argument necessary, given that the suggestion of following BS7671 comes from the same document?

Maybe, but i think maybe not. Imagine you have just installed something which would be common place in a (e.g.) Italian home, but then have BCO inspect it.

I think you would have to prove that your installation is equivalent in terms of safety to BS7671200nwhatever) Me personally, would not like to have to go through the Italian regulations trying to convince a BC officer that it is ok when he probably doesn't even understand the UK regs anyway.

Best of luck to any one who tries it. Personally, i'd rather avoid the headache

Approved document P specifically states that the Secretary of State considers adherance to BS7671 17th edition as as means of acheiving this.

Are you sure about that?

And it also specifically states (a) that there is no obligation to follow any of the guidance provided in the document, and (b) that two dozen other standards are also, in the Secretary of State's view, considered as equally acceptable.

Are you or is anyone you know familiar with any of the other standards referred to?
If you are not aware of the other standards, how would you ensure compliance with them?
How would you convince BC of this?

 

[Paul_C]

Bongos: I have heard this once before- do you have a reference I could quote to them that states that LABC should pay for the test and inspection? *added* it looks like section 1.26 in http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf does indeed state the LABC should take the cost of testing and inspection- can someone confirm my interpretation is correct?

There was a circular issued by the ODPM to LABC's around the country. Scroll down to "Local authority inspection and testing of electrical installation work in dwellings," about halfway down the page:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/...../buildingregulationspart/

The key section:

There have been reports that some local authorities are asking householders to have electrical installation work inspected, tested and certificated by someone other than the person carrying out the work. Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 (which would give power to local authorities to require persons carrying out building work to carry out such reasonable tests, at the person's expense, of or in connection with the work for the purpose of enabling local authorities to ascertain whether the work complies with the requirements of the Regulations) has not been commenced. This means in our opinion that local authorities do not have the power to require householders to retain an electrician to test and certificate the work in accordance with BS 7671. Local authorities which have adopted such a practice should discontinue it immediately.

paragraph 0.1 and 0.2, P7: "In the secretary of states viewthe requirements will be met by adherence... BS7671:2001" That would appear to be a worthwhile point to make! However: Does paragraph 1.4 on P10 then require that any work is done to the latest regs...?

Nothing in the Part P Approved Document can require anything, since Approved Documents are not law. However, the document itself clearly indicates this to be the case anyway.

Note that section 0.1 says:

In the Secretary of State's view, the requirements will be met by adherence to the 'Fundamental Principles' for achieving safety given in BS7671:2001 Chapter 13.

Not adherence to BS7671:2001 (or any other version). Just adherence to the fundamental principles of chapter 13, which it then summarizes.

The wording of section 0.2 says:

A way of satisying the fundamental principles would be to follow:

(a) the technical rules described in the body of BS7671:2001 as amended or an equivalent standard approved by a member of the EEA;

Note "A way of complying," not the only way.

And right back in the introduction, on page 3:

Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations. However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.

(The emphasis on the last sentence is not mine; it's in the original document.)

It was my (naive!) understanding that essentially anyone can do the work, but then LABC need to inspect to confirm the appropriate standard- is this not correct?

Yes. If you are paying the appropriate building fee, then anyone may do the work and the LABC is supposed to inspect as necessary. As referred to in the ODPM's circular above, they have no authority to demand independent third-party testing and certification.

In this case their appointed "inspector" has seen "2006" and appears to have gone no further to determine if it is still safe and appropriate.

Which is wrong. The only legal requirement as far as the actual work goes is that very basic "Reasonable provision for safety" requirement.

Nozspark: He's not currently practicing as an electrician, and hence no longer able to cert his own work to the 17th, which was where I was hoping LABC would come in...

Legally, anyone can issue a certificate if he feels competent to do so. Of course, if he says something complies with a particular standard and it later emerges that it doesn't, then his competency would be called into question.

But in this case, you've paid LABC the fee, you did not indicate on the form that you agreed to any of their non-statutory "requirements" (independent certification), so the onus is on them to inspect & test if they deem it necessary.