BS7671 2006 vs 2008

[riveralt]

BAS please calm down - and breath deeply -I can feel your blood pressure rising. Its only a forum

Rather than calling me a liar, perhaps you should, like I am, consult with the Communities and Local Government Department. I am sure they will be able to confirm which edition of BS7671 the Approved document Part P now refers to.

I do not understand how you can consider the 16th edition to be as safe as the 17th edition. How can you support that belief when the 17th edition introduced the requirement for additional protection in special locations like shower rooms.

As you know, 50mA is more than enough to kill someone. Under the 16th edition a 8.5kw shower has the capacity to generate a lethal 36 amps under short circuit conditions. When, the circuit has additional protection that capacity is limited to 30mA for less than 20ms. You will still get a belt but it should not kill you.

So yes I would state in court, on oath, that the 17th edition is more safe than the 16th edition. I would also say that the 17th edition is the current standard that must be used for all new installations, additions or alterations. I do not know of one LABC who would validate installations under Part P against the 16th edition. Do you know of one, if so please advise me where it is?

By the way, what is you aversion to plumbers?

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

To the OP, maybe you should read the regs yourself and take a view.
(have a look at the introduction to BS7671:2008, pg.4.) as its all going a bit silly and academic now.

I wonder if the confusion comes from the badly written documents that have not been updated to take account of the changes in regulation that they refer to? Or whether the way it is worded was the authors deliberate intention to allow for an update to its references without the need to update the approved doc?

Something to consider:

Does the re-issue of BS7671 constitute a new standard?

If so, why is it in its seventeenth edition of the 'BS7671' and not the first edition of BS7671:2008 ?

As most will agree, the whole correlation between wiring regulation and building regulation is shambolic and needs to be sorted out pronto (not holding my breath)

If there are any electricians-come-have-a-go lawyers who have actually put their money where there mouth is and persued their claim in court that installing wiring systems to an obsolete regulations was ok, i would love to hear from them!

Personally speaking, as someone who likes an easy life and sleeps well at night from following the current regulations, i understand theat there are some folk who believe they are all things to all men and have the answer to everything. Let them go on a limb and take the risk of being shot down in court by a shiny suited shark who specialises in word play.
When they've finished, ill pick the bones out of the legal carnage and then make an informed decision on the wisdom of trying to be big and clever when they should have just installed the wires with no short cuts.

BAS, would it be possible for you to ask whether it is possible to 'prove that something is' as opposed to 'prove that something is not'. How do you prove a negative?

I understand that you have a fondness of boolean expressions and how they relate to lawnmowing, but why not simplify your diction in order to simplify your meaning?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Rather than calling me a liar, perhaps you should, like I am, consult with the Communities and Local Government Department. I am sure they will be able to confirm which edition of BS7671 the Approved document Part P now refers to.

I don't need to "consult" with them, as the document is published here:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf

Perhaps you'd like to read Performance section 01 & General section 02a on p7 and report back on which version of BS 7671 appears in the text.

I do not understand how you can consider the 16th edition to be as safe as the 17th edition.

I do not understand why you think I do consider it.

Will you please show me where I said that?

So yes I would state in court, on oath, that the 17th edition is more safe than the 16th edition.

That's not what I asked you.

Please disabuse yourself of the ridiculous notion that I am going to accept those sorts of evasions as an answer to what is a perfectly straightforward question.

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

I would also say that the 17th edition is the current standard that must be used for all new installations, additions or alterations.

That's not what I asked you.

Please disabuse yourself of the ridiculous notion that I am going to accept those sorts of evasions as an answer to what is a perfectly straightforward question.

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

And when you've done that will you please provide a reference to the law which says that the 17th edition is the current standard that must be used for all new installations, additions or alterations.

I do not know of one LABC who would validate installations under Part P against the 16th edition. Do you know of one, if so please advise me where it is?

I do not know of one LABC which is legally entitled to refuse to accept that work done to BS 7671:2001(2004) as, per se, not reasonably safe, nor do I know of any who have successfully defended any such actions in court. If you know of one, please tell me which it is, and provide a link to the reports of the court proceedings.

By the way, what is you aversion to plumbers?

I don't like the way that they lie to people asking questions, either because they don't like the truth or believe that people should not know the truth.

 

[riveralt]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Does the re-issue of BS7671 constitute a new standard?

It's not a re-issue, it's a new edition.

If so, why is it in its seventeenth edition of the 'BS7671' and not the first edition of BS7671:2008 ?

Because it is a new edition of BS 7671. It is the 17th such edition. It is the 2008 edition of BS 7161.

It is not an amendment to the previous edition.

If there are any electricians-come-have-a-go lawyers who have actually put their money where there mouth is and persued their claim in court that installing wiring systems to an obsolete regulations was ok, i would love to hear from them!

If there are any councils who have actually put their tax payers money where their mouth is and pursued their claim in court that they are allowed to act outside the law and in contravention of official government advice and direction then I would love to hear about them.

Personally speaking, as someone who likes an easy life and sleeps well at night from following the current regulations, i understand theat there are some folk who believe they are all things to all men and have the answer to everything. Let them go on a limb and take the risk of being shot down in court by a shiny suited shark who specialises in word play.
When they've finished, ill pick the bones out of the legal carnage and then make an informed decision on the wisdom of trying to be big and clever when they should have just installed the wires with no short cuts.

Were the OP to have come here and asked whether he should plan for forthcoming electrical work to comply with the 16th or the 17th then of course the answer would be the 17th.

But that's not the situation - for whatever reason he has ended up with work certified to the 16th. At no stage has he done anything other than comply with both the law, and the official guidance, as written.

You want to tell him to let the council bully him into accepting their unlawful (as in no basis in law, rather than actually being an offence) position, I want to tell him what the law actually says and to give him as much ammunition as I can so that if he wants to argue with them he can do so.

Whether or not he is prepared to take them to court is entirely up to him, and there are many instances, in all walks of life and fields of human endeavour where individuals have had to give in to the unjustifiable demands of people and organisations with more resources than they, but that does not, IMO, mean that the best advice that should ever be given is "just roll over and give up without so much as a whimper".

BAS, would it be possible for you to ask whether it is possible to 'prove that something is' as opposed to 'prove that something is not'. How do you prove a negative?

Don't ask me - ask Winchester council who believe that they can prove that electrical work done in compliance with BS 7671:2001(2004) is not reasonably safe.

I understand that you have a fondness of boolean expressions and how they relate to lawnmowing, but why not simplify your diction in order to simplify your meaning?

If you can tell me what I have written that you do not understand I will try and explain it to you.

If you do that, then while you are waiting for a reply perhaps you would like to take up the lawn mowing subject with ColJack and Stoday, who were the people responsible for it, not I.

 

[riveralt]

BAS, would it be possible for you to ask whether it is possible to 'prove that something is' as opposed to 'prove that something is not'. How do you prove a negative?

Don't ask me - ask Winchester council who believe that they can prove that electrical work done in compliance with BS 7671:2001(2004) is not reasonably safe.

Winchester Council - Are we getting to the knub of the issue

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Does the re-issue of BS7671 constitute a new standard?

It's not a re-issue, it's a new edition.

If so, why is it in its seventeenth edition of the 'BS7671' and not the first edition of BS7671:2008 ?

Because it is a new edition of BS 7671. It is the 17th such edition. It is the 2008 edition of BS 7161.

It is not an amendment to the previous edition.

I found that the way you responded to that was with a tone of condescention, is that not so? (thinks - dead parott, deceased, it is an ex-parott) Although im sure that that wasn't your intention, as usual

These questions were posed due to the position of some that bs7671 16th ed (amended or not) is a different animal to BS7671 17th edition.
What do you think about my thought that it was a deliberate attempt by the author to write the document in such a way as to dispense with the necessity of automatically having to re-writing the document simply due to an update to its own references?

If there are any electricians-come-have-a-go lawyers who have actually put their money where there mouth is and persued their claim in court that installing wiring systems to an obsolete regulations was ok, i would love to hear from them!

If there are any councils who have actually put their tax payers money where their mouth is and pursued their claim in court that they are allowed to act outside the law and in contravention of official government advice and direction then I would love to hear about them.

Not sure why you wrote this, it doesn't answer anything, merely poses a similar question but from a different viewpoint. Do you care to offer an answer?

Personally speaking, as someone who likes an easy life and sleeps well at night from following the current regulations, i understand theat there are some folk who believe they are all things to all men and have the answer to everything. Let them go on a limb and take the risk of being shot down in court by a shiny suited shark who specialises in word play.
When they've finished, ill pick the bones out of the legal carnage and then make an informed decision on the wisdom of trying to be big and clever when they should have just installed the wires with no short cuts.

Were the OP to have come here and asked whether he should plan for forthcoming electrical work to comply with the 16th or the 17th then of course the answer would be the 17th.

I agree

But that's not the situation - for whatever reason he has ended up with work certified to the 16th. At no stage has he done anything other than comply with both the law, and the official guidance, as written.

why do you think i invited the OP to look at the introduction on page.4?

You want to tell him to let the council bully him into accepting their unlawful

wrong

(as in no basis in law, rather than actually being an offence) position, I want to tell him what the law actually says and to give him as much ammunition as I can so that if he wants to argue with them he can do so.

fair enough, not under dispute with me. I would advise the OP to take the path of least resistance - How much time/effort/cost would be involved with bringing the install upto date? Not much is my guess.

Whether or not he is prepared to take them to court is entirely up to him, and there are many instances, in all walks of life and fields of human endeavour where individuals have had to give in to the unjustifiable demands of people and organisations with more resources than they, but that does not, IMO, mean that the best advice that should ever be given is "just roll over and give up without so much as a whimper".

nobody is suggesting he hold his butt cheeks open for the council to 'do him like a gud'un', but why fight a battle where avoiding it may cost less, take less time and give a less of a headache?

BAS, would it be possible for you to ask whether it is possible to 'prove that something is' as opposed to 'prove that something is not'. How do you prove a negative?

Don't ask me - ask Winchester council who believe that they can prove that electrical work done in compliance with BS 7671:2001(2004) is not reasonably safe.

nope, im asking you whether you could ask your questions with less negatives within them?. I live 100+ miles from Winchester, why would i bother to ask them anything?

I understand that you have a fondness of boolean expressions and how they relate to lawnmowing, but why not simplify your diction in order to simplify your meaning?

If you can tell me what I have written that you do not understand I will try and explain it to you.

I personally have no problem in understanding what you have written, i just think it could be improved to give a greater degree of clarity by not asking to prove negatives.
My question in this respect is meant to be broader than just this topic.

If you do that, then while you are waiting for a reply perhaps you would like to take up the lawn mowing subject with ColJack and Stoday, who were the people responsible for it, not I.

Were you not creating explainatory truth tables to enlighten Coljack?
I thought you were?

 

[deejaybee101]

Hi All,

Thanks again for your thoughts! You have all been substantially more helpful than I could have hoped for!

As I see it I have three ways forward from this point:

1) Easiest/best option: Show/allow an inspection that shows the installation as performed actually does meet BS7671:2008 (which probably means I have to un-insulate the loft again!)

2) Next option: Show that the differences between BS7671:2008 and BS7671:2001 are immaterial for this installation. So far I have found only a couple of significant changes between the standards
a. Colour change in wiring (which is correct)
b. Requirement for RCD protection on cables less than 50mm deep (i.e. lighting switches, given that the CU has two 30mA RCD’s and we have no electrical shower, this also looks probably acceptable to me)
c. Is anyone aware of any significant others?

3) Last option: Argue that the statutory requirements are only for reasonable safety and ask why Approved doc part P (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf) paragraph 0.1 on page 7 which gives BS7671:2001 as ONE way of achieving that, even considering paragraph 1.4 on P10 discusses BS7671:2001 or *amendments*, this still only gives this the weight of “A” way of complying, clearly not mandating compliance, is not sufficient

I suspect I will use a selection of all three: Clearly the first one cannot be determined without a physical inspection, so turning this into some paper exercise where the mere presence of "2006" on the cert voids it strikes me, after reading everyone's contributions here, as wholly wrong and a massive oversimplification of the issue.

The second needs me to review in some detail the specs in question to make a judgment as to why the differences are trivial

mikhailfaradayski: Would you be able to you provide me with a link where I could find the 2008 regs please?

The final one is a concern: I have no doubt that LABC will be more knowledgable than myself, which makes it a risky strategy, even if the official document is, to my mind, unequivocal...

Kind regards,

djb

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I only have a paper copy ( Amazon are well priced should you choose to get your own, about £45-50ish)

I understand that some folk could direct you to a PDF version, but im not sure where, sorry.

If you intend to do more electrical work in the future, i would advise you to buy a copy so you can refer to it where its convinient for you.
I know its the price of a meal for two, but its a cracking good read and a great tool.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

The final one is a concern: I have no doubt that LABC will be more knowledgable than myself, which makes it a risky strategy, even if the official document is, to my mind, unequivocal...

more knowledgeable? doubt it, but who knows.
More pedantic, jobsworthy, petty, repressed, harbouring feelings of underacheivement in life, ain alley retentive ne'er do wells? Quite probably!!

In my experience, dealing with the council for anything, anything at all will lead to a protracted and unhappy affair.
You can make a righteous stand and may prove your point if you like confrontation.
Or you could just bite the bullet and make a few changes

BTW, have i missed a bit here? Why do you think you need to un-insulate the loft?

 

[davelx]

The final one is a concern: I have no doubt that LABC will be more knowledgable than myself, which makes it a risky strategy, even if the official document is, to my mind, unequivocal...

Kind regards,

djb

I wouldn't bet on it! I spoke to my local authority about this and what they told me, in summary, was as follows:

-----

When Part P came into force, local authorities were not provided with any time, additional training, headcount or test equipment, nor given any budget to obtain any of these, which is why they are so very reluctant to accept Building Notices for electrical work unless the work is being done by a qualified electrician who can issue the appropriate certs.

They mostly didn't/don't have anyone with any electrical qualifications or training or test equipment, so if they have to inspect/test they have to sub it out - but they have no budget for that either.

-----

My LABC will accept a EIC/MWC signed by a person competent to do so. I asked them what they needed to see to accept a person as competent and they said.....

"A member of a part-P self certification scheme" !!!!

and it did not occur to them that such a person would not need to notify via a building notice and therefore that position made no sense. I gave up discussing it with them as they were clearly as incapable of understanding a reasoned argument in plain English as some people on this forum are (if the cap fits.....)

 

[deejaybee101]

LOL! I must try to erase your colourful imagery lest it leak out at an unfortunate moment...

I agree with the sentiments of dealing with the council. The best one can hope for is a slow, but cheap outcome!

Re insulation: I understood that wires were supposed to run over the top of it...and while clearly no-one is every really going to do that, the fewer excuses the better, is this not correct?

I think as a start I will write LABC a nice letter, pointing out that really only a physical inspection can determine the validity of the installation with regards to 2008 regs, and I would be happy to host them for an inspection and testing as they see fit, and we can deal with any points raised by this process when we have more information to throw at each other...

Kind regards,

djb

 

[deejaybee101]

Davelx: "They mostly didn't/don't have anyone with any electrical qualifications or training or test equipment, so if they have to inspect/test they have to sub it out - but they have no budget for that either"

That would appear to be the case here, as they have immediately sub-contracted the 'approval' to a third party....

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

LOL! I must try to erase your colourful imagery lest it leak out at an unfortunate moment...

yes, repeating my comments to your BC officer will probably do nothing to endear you to him. Just think, don't say

I agree with the sentiments of dealing with the council. The best one can hope for is a slow, but cheap outcome!

Re insulation: I understood that wires were supposed to run over the top of it...and while clearly no-one is every really going to do that, the fewer excuses the better, is this not correct?

There are de-rating factors to consider if the cable passes through insulating materials. The regs also call for cables to be routed in a manner where they not going to be subject to external stresses/influences etc.
The size of the cable, the current to be carried by that cable and its location are deciding factors to consider whether the install is compliant, but i can't say without further info.

I think as a start I will write LABC a nice letter, pointing out that really only a physical inspection can determine the validity of the installation with regards to 2008 regs, and I would be happy to host them for an inspection and testing as they see fit, and we can deal with any points raised by this process when we have more information to throw at each other...

Kind regards,

djb

Best of luck to you! It would be great to know what the outcome is

 

[deejaybee101]

one, possibly final (I make no promises!) question from me:

Looking at the link BAS kindly provided regarding the differences between 16th and 17th regs one thing concerned me:

"There are now requirements for emergency escape lighting and fire protection applications"

Does this mean that I now need hardwired smoke detectors?

Kind regards,

djb