BS7671 2006 vs 2008

[deejaybee101]

Thanks mikhailfaradayski

That is also quite unequivical!

The bottom line is that I want the BC approval with minimum cost and grief. If writing snotty letters gets that done, fine. If 1-200 quid can sort it in less then geological timescales, also fine.

There is no doubt that the work was designed after the time indicated on the 17th ed. Perhaps you would be able to offer an opinion me as to the likely cost/update requirements if I list my areas of concern?

- there is no hard-wired smoke detector linked to the mains board. Is this mandated in the 17th? (two battery smoke alarms are fitted)

- wiring uses the appropriate 17th colours for the lighting circuits. Existing ringmain wiring was used to the sockets. Testing shows insulation resistance >500MOhm.

- The CU is mounted at a height of about 2.1m above the garage floor: does this have to be located between 0.4 and 1.2m? If it requires moving to a different height, there may not be enough slack in the installation for the wires. Would this require re-wiring, or could a patch panel be installed? This could be the MAJOR issue I think...

- The CU contains two 30mA RCD's with each individual circuit protected using MCB's. Lighting circuits are on one RCD, ringmain on the other. Does that meet the requirements to the letter, if perhaps not the spirit?

- Electrical work in the bathroom consists of a shaver point (well outside any special zone) and a mains spur to the boiler (in a cupboard). These are protected using one of the RCD's respectively. Old 2 wire lighting circuit replaced with 3 wire.

- Electrical work in the kitchen consists only of replacing the old 2wire lighting circuit, with 3 wire.

- Three external IP65 lights have been installed

Opinions welcomed- caveats attached entirely respected!

 

[Paul_C]

The notes in the introduction to the current edition of BS7671 may be perfectly clear as to the applicable dates and requirements, but BS7671 is not law.

The actual legislation is contained within the Building Regulations (link posted by B-A-S above), and that legislation does not in any way make compliance with BS7671 mandatory.

Unless you want to let the LABC bully you into complying with its unlawful demands, and spend more money into the bargain, I would stand firm. You've complied with the law by notifying (but you'll know not to bother next time!), and no reasonable person looking at it could argue that you have not complied with the requirements of Part P of the Building Regulations.

 

[LiamPope]

Never mind the squabbling - let them carry on .

I'm a mere DIYer and stand to be corrected on the below, but here goes...

Hard wired smoke alarms - only a requirement on a new build if I recall correctly. But this is an area where some LABCs like to take their own interpretation and extend it to a refurb, or even just a rewire. You should be OK, but you might like to install some anyway - they're required in new builds for a good reason.

Test results don't indicate any problems.

CU height - another area of endless debate. Does a CU fall within the list of things that have to be within the Part M heights? Some say yes, some say no. Plenty of new builds being put up with the CU overhead. Again, should be a moot point as the heights only really apply to a new build. You should only have to ensure you dont make the situation any worse than before. As above, some LABCs may have a different idea here!

Two RCDs is generally considered the minimum acceptable to comply with 17th, so you should be OK there. Again, surprise surprise, an area of some debate!

The only thing I'd add is - is your main bonding up to scratch? 10mm^2 earth cable from gas and water main entrance points to the main earth terminal.

If that's in place, it seems your installation probably complies with 17th. I'd reiterate the suggestion above to just have the spark redo the EIC on 17th templates and stating the installation was designed/installed to the 2008 edition. Might just solve your problems. Nothing to loose anyway.

Liam

 

[LoveRocket]

As has been said, just get your spark to redo the certs and write BS7671:2008.

As long as 1) Every circuit in your house is RCD protected, and 2) ALL your lights are NOT on the same RCD, then it should be deemed 17th-compliant (I know this is a generalisation, but it seems pretty reasonable in this situation).

Paul C and his pals are also correct - the council is acting unlawfully - but new certs to shut them up is the simplest solution for you right now.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

'm sorry, but BS7671 (2008) is now the required standard for Part P of the building regulations.

Nothing in law to say that BS7671 (2008) must be used.

Thank god that's finally agreed....

Well actually the Health and Safety at Work Act does require that the current standard of BS7671 (2008) is used when it comes to Electrical Safety. And we are all covered by this Act.

1) Only people at work are covered by the Electricity At Work Regulations.

2) In any event, and with a depressing feeling of deja vu, please show us where they actually require compliance with BS 7671:2008.

But the only question the prosecution will ask is, did you follow the requirements of the 17th edition?

If the answer is No, remember it is a potential £5000 fine for each breach of the Act, never mind jail time.

Breach of which Act?

As there are no Acts which mandate following the requirements of the 17th Edition then there can be no offence of not following it, can there?

In which case why do you want to link not following them to potential fines of £5,000 for breaches of some Act or other?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

does it actually? On page4, where?

On line 3 of the Foreword section.

Anyway, thats not what i was getting at and it seems as thought the OP is interested to find out, so im happy about that.

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

I don't know why you did that.

Try reading it in wrt what the OP says, it may give enlightenment

OK - fine - we'll leave that, as I'm not interested in playing guessing games - the OP was asking about Building Regulations, and the requirements of Part P, so no, I still don't know why you referred him to the Wiring Regulations, but as log as you think he has guessed why you did...

Is that your script?

Yes, as in "it would have been easy to write...", i.e. a suggestion of an alternative .

What is it in place of?

I'm sorry you found it impossible to spot, given that you had raised the subject of why it was worded that way in Approved Document P.

From AD P:

"A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the body
of BS 7671:2001 as amended or in an
equivalent standard approved by a member
of the EEA..."

My suggested alternative:

"A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the body
of the Edition of BS 7671 current at the time of
carrying out the work or in an
equivalent standard approved by a member
of the EEA..."

What do you think to my question about the intention of the Author, a nice piece of writing to cover his rs or a dullard who should not have been allowed to publish the drivel?

I thought your suggestion was

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?

ok, do you think there will be anybody who can comment on either situation from experience?

No.

I have given him a sensible alternative to put the job to bed and get paid.

Your "sensible alternative" is for him to roll over and let the council have their way over the 16th not being a way to produce reasonably safe work.

how far back did you look?

All the way to the start.

Its not my problem, and you are mistaken about my concern.

You were complaining about the suggestion that a negative could be proved. It is that council's suggestion.

Can't be bothered to go through all that rammel again to refresh my memory, you may be right.

But you can be bothered to bring it up as an irrelevant criticism in another topic.

I see.

Would you like to bump that thread with some wise words?

No.

 

[riveralt]

Tut Tut BAS misquoting me

Breach of which Act? The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 covers the dwelling when work is done a person other than the owner as in this case.

This link will give you the Act:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legRes...iveTextDocId=1316700&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0

Section 16 is the legislation for the Approved Codes of Practice

This link will give you the current codes of Practice.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/standards.htm

BS7671 (2008) is under Electrical & Power,

Section 17 are the consequences for not following the codes of practice.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Thanks mikhailfaradayski

no probs

That is also quite unequivical!

The bottom line is that I want the BC approval with minimum cost and grief. If writing snotty letters gets that done, fine. If 1-200 quid can sort it in less then geological timescales, also fine.

sounds like a level headed approach

There is no doubt that the work was designed after the time indicated on the 17th ed. Perhaps you would be able to offer an opinion me as to the likely cost/update requirements if I list my areas of concern?

difficult to say without looking, sorry. Also, labour cost vary accross the country and im near Derby

- there is no hard-wired smoke detector linked to the mains board. Is this mandated in the 17th? (two battery smoke alarms are fitted)

If its just a rewire on an existing property and you have not provided any new habitable rooms then i don't believe there you are required to have them, but i always talk to my customers about installing them, a prudent move if its possible.

- wiring uses the appropriate 17th colours for the lighting circuits. Existing ringmain wiring was used to the sockets. Testing shows insulation resistance >500MOhm.

seems fine, there should be a label attached to the CU to advise of the colours in use.

- The CU is mounted at a height of about 2.1m above the garage floor: does this have to be located between 0.4 and 1.2m? If it requires moving to a different height, there may not be enough slack in the installation for the wires. Would this require re-wiring, or could a patch panel be installed? This could be the MAJOR issue I think...

those heights only apply to new builds. In an old property, my logic is to put it in a sensible place where its not going to be a pain to get to. A common sense approach is all thats required.

- The CU contains two 30mA RCD's with each individual circuit protected using MCB's. Lighting circuits are on one RCD, ringmain on the other. Does that meet the requirements to the letter, if perhaps not the spirit?

The reg concerned here is 314.1, this only tells the designer that they should 'consider' the safety of the users in the event of a single fault. This is open to a lot of differing points of view and you are free to form your own. Any combination of the following may be acceptable, but really it should be on a case by case basis.
2 rcd's and a combination of various mcb's sensibly split between them. e.g. upstairs lights and downstairs sockets on one, down lights and up sockets on the other.
1 rcd/mcbs and a number of rcbos, sensibly split up
complete set of rcbos for all circuits.
some circuits could be wired in a manner where rcd protection is not required and may just want mcb protection.
Use of emergency lighting.
something else that a spark may have considered.

- Electrical work in the bathroom consists of a shaver point (well outside any special zone) and a mains spur to the boiler (in a cupboard). These are protected using one of the RCD's respectively. Old 2 wire lighting circuit replaced with 3 wire.

If only some circuits for that area are RCD protected, you may need to apply supplementary bonding. Another reason why it may be wise to get everything on RCDs throughout

- Electrical work in the kitchen consists only of replacing the old 2wire lighting circuit, with 3 wire.

- Three external IP65 lights have been installed

whats the total power of the outside lighting?

Opinions welcomed- caveats attached entirely respected!

 

[Paul_C]

The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 covers the dwelling when work is done a person other than the owner as in this case.

That and the EAWR 1989 come into play if the work is done by an employee or self-employed person. Whatever breaches may or may not occur regarding the standards referenced (not necessarily mandated) by those, that is an entirely different matter than compliance with the Building Regulations. The latter apply whether the work is done for remuneration, by the owner, or by a friend or family member helping out.

In other words, as far as the issue with LABC and compliance with Building Regulations is concerned, they're pretty much irrelevant.

 

[deejaybee101]

LiamPope: Thanks for your thought- I am increasingly forming the same opinion. Earthing conductor was 16mm squared, equipotential bonding conductors 10mm squared.

mikhailfaradayski: Thanks again for your thoughts- it's this sort of real-world input that is very reassuring to have in your back-pocket for discussion during the inspection. With regards to the bathroom installation, the whole house is run through the RCD's so I don't think I need additional supplemental bonding. With regards to the external lights, I think there are two 60W, and a 2x50W spot)- does that present any special concern?

Thank you all! Particularly to you BAS and mikhailfaradayski both

I am grateful for all your contributions, and now feel quite well armed to firstly argue the toss with the BC, and secondly that the installation almost certainly does meet 17th ed regs anyway, bar some minor tweaking in the CU.

I think the appropriate way to proceed is still as previously stated:

- Write BC a nice letter, givings the sparks qualifications, and hence why they can have confidence in this installation.

- indicating my disappointment in their decision, given that we believe that we have provided evidence that the installtion meets and exceed the statutory requirements of part P, and the only counter argument at this point is that the form has 2006 written on it- no other technical deviations were noted.

- clearly this is no basis for deciding the validity of the install, and invite them to perform a physical inspection, whereby any material deviations from the statutory requirements can be properly located and discussed.

will keep you posted on the result!

kind regards,

djb

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

does it actually? On page4, where?

On line 3 of the Foreword section.

ah, ok, i was looking in the introduction, which is what i first referred to.

Anyway, thats not what i was getting at and it seems as thought the OP is interested to find out, so im happy about that.

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

I don't know why you did that.

Try reading it in wrt what the OP says, it may give enlightenment

OK - fine - we'll leave that, as I'm not interested in playing guessing games - the OP was asking about Building Regulations, and the requirements of Part P, so no, I still don't know why you referred him to the Wiring Regulations, but as log as you think he has guessed why you did...

fine, it seems as though the OP understood where i was going with it. The fact you didn't is of no real importance to me.

Is that your script?

Yes, as in "it would have been easy to write...", i.e. a suggestion of an alternative .

What is it in place of?

I'm sorry you found it impossible to spot, given that you had raised the subject of why it was worded that way in Approved Document P.

Its not that i found anything impossible to spot, more that i didn't bother to review it thinking it would be just as easy to ask you. Saved me some time, thanks.

From AD P:

"A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the body
of BS 7671:2001 as amended or in an
equivalent standard approved by a member
of the EEA..."

My suggested alternative:

"A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the body
of the Edition of BS 7671 current at the time of
carrying out the work or in an
equivalent standard approved by a member
of the EEA..."

What do you think to my question about the intention of the Author, a nice piece of writing to cover his rs or a dullard who should not have been allowed to publish the drivel?

I thought your suggestion was

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?

er, whatever. Tell you what, why don't you just give your opinion of why it was written in the way it was? Would probably be easier to work out if we agree or not.

ok, do you think there will be anybody who can comment on either situation from experience?

No.

I have given him a sensible alternative to put the job to bed and get paid.

Your "sensible alternative" is for him to roll over and let the council have their way over the 16th not being a way to produce reasonably safe work.

The sensible approach would be for the OP to find the way which will bring the current situation to an end which he (not you) is happy with.

how far back did you look?

All the way to the start.

the start of what? I don't believe that you looked through some 20000+ posts in that short space of time.

Its not my problem, and you are mistaken about my concern.

You were complaining about the suggestion that a negative could be proved.

no i wasn't

It is that council's suggestion.

Can't be bothered to go through all that rammel again to refresh my memory, you may be right.

But you can be bothered to bring it up as an irrelevant criticism in another topic.

criticism? what makes you say that? I just recall your enthusiasm and the effort you went to to make your point

I see

hhmmm, are you sure?

Would you like to bump that thread with some wise words?

No.

aww, gwan, it was the most entertaining pile of nit picking i've read for a while.

 

[Paul_C]

I think the appropriate way to proceed is still as previously stated:

- Write BC a nice letter, givings the sparks qualifications, and hence why they can have confidence in this installation.

- indicating my disappointment in their decision, given that we believe that we have provided evidence that the installtion meets and exceed the statutory requirements of part P, and the only counter argument at this point is that the form has 2006 written on it- no other technical deviations were noted.

- clearly this is no basis for deciding the validity of the install, and invite them to perform a physical inspection, whereby any material deviations from the statutory requirements can be properly located and discussed.

That sounds reasonable. Maybe the building inspector will realize from your challenge that you know the rules and will back down when it becomes clear that you aren't just going give in. If your "play nice at first" approach just elicits a refusal to budge, then I'd say it's time to write a more strongly worded letter pointing out the actual legal requirements and insisting that they follow them.

 

[deejaybee101]

Thanks for your contibutionalso Paul- that was the approach I was intending. Perhaps the mention of statutory requirements will provide the required effect while still keeping my powder dry.

After all the discussions here, I don't think I actually have anthing to fear from an actual inspection. Clearly this would incurr BC with an inspection and testing charge, which they can avoid by either verifying the cert, or indicating material breach on the cert that would require addressing before inspection.

 

[bongos]

Good luck and let us know how you get on. There seem to be lots of naughty LABC's out there not doing things as they should.

 

[LiamPope]

Hmmmmm - still not sure! The point I'm trying to make is that you should exhaust any potential painless win-win solutions before you start sending letters politely but firmly informing them that they are idiots who don't know how to do their job properly, and should do it this way instead. However right you may be, you will still come accross to them as an annoying know-it all who's to be dealt with with the utmost obfuscation and lack of cooperation!

Refer to your letter again and that report. Not having a clue themselves, they are sending EICs to some third party to rubber stamp them. They are not interested in the installation - only the cert. Yours has come back 'no' because of the 2006 declaration, simple as that. The letter reads to me like somebody just trying to tick boxes. They're even still being courteous to you at this stage - dare I say it, friendly even! They have asked your electrician to respond to the report and carry out any remedial work necessary. Your electrician simply responds with 17th edition certs and says no remedial work was necessary, plus gives a copy of his quals. Certs go straight to third party, come back rubber stamped 'yes', this ticks LABC's boxes and you get your completion cert. Simples.

It's at least worth a try before you start writing stern letters and your relationship with LABC goes pear shaped. Anyone else agree?

Liam