Can I do this as a DIYer???

[ban-all-sheds]

If you say so.

I do say so, and anybody who says otherwise is mistaken, as can be shown by searching the text of the SIs for the string "7671".

using a definition of a location from the 16th does not mean that the 16th is what the law requires you to follow.

I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply, that it did/does.

A suggestion that working to BS 7671:2001 was perfectly reasonable because it was regarded as a safe standard as recently as last year.

In what way is it not reasonable to work to the current version of the standard?

do you know if the Building Regulations have been amended to refer to the 17th Edition?

AFAIK, the latest iteration of the SI refers specifically to BS 7671:2001, for example when defining the term "special location".

If it hasn't [been so amended], then how does a punter resolve the conflict in terms of lawfulness? Is it correct to work to the 16th Edition, i.e. by the letter of the law, or (electrically) safer to work to the 17th Edition, i.e. by the spirit of the law?

Was I dreadfully mistaken to think, particularly from the final paragraph, that you were implying that?

I think you've missed my point, so I apologise if I was unclear, but I'm grateful for the time you've taken to give your opinion on this.

You asked "how does a punter resolve the conflict" when there is no conflict. Could you try to explain your point with a little more clarity?

 

[Goldberg]

If you say so.

I do say so, and anybody who says otherwise is mistaken, as can be shown by searching the text of the SIs for the string "7671".

I was careful to precede the relevant sentence with "AFAIK", and I'm perfectly content for you to think that you know better.

...If it hasn't [been so amended], then how does a punter resolve the conflict in terms of lawfulness? Is it correct to work to the 16th Edition, i.e. by the letter of the law, or (electrically) safer to work to the 17th Edition, i.e. by the spirit of the law?

Was I dreadfully mistaken to think, particularly from the final paragraph, that you were implying that?

Perish the thought.

At no point have I said, or intended to imply, that you were mistaken, let alone imply that anything dreadful has occurred.

If you inferred something different, then I hereby accept that your inference was reasonable, and devoid of dreadfulness, but the fact remains that such an implication was not in my mind.

I think you've missed my point, so I apologise if I was unclear, but I'm grateful for the time you've taken to give your opinion on this.

You asked "how does a punter resolve the conflict" when there is no conflict. Could you try to explain your point with a little more clarity?

Yes, but it was my desire to solicit opinions on the subject. Once some other opinions have been aired I'll be happy to have a debate about clarity.

And just in case you're overwhelmed by an uncontrollable urge to tell me that you think it's impossible to give an opinion until I clarify my questions, please take it as read that I hereby note your point, in advance, but I still wish to wait and see if anyone else has intuited my intent.

And just in case you feel compelled to tell me that I must entirely lack self-respect, and am therefore sub-human, let's just save a lot of time and assume that I must do, and that I am, so that we can move on with The Collecting Of The Opinions.

 

[Paul_C]

Please see SI 2004:3210, Regulation 12(5), paragraph 4

Viewable here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043210.htm

But if I wanted to wire my house to American or Australian standards, there's nothing in the Building Regs. to stop me.

True, except for a "special location" - BS 7671:2001 currently has precedence in the event of any conflict of definitions of "relevant zones", and the definitions in BS 7671:2001 therefore have legal relevance, despite the BS not being a statutory document.

The reference to BS7671 in that S.I. only to the extent of defining "special locations" for the purpose of determining whether or not the work is notifiable.

Whether notifiable or non-notifiable, there's still no compulsion to follow BS7671 when actually installing wiring in such locations.

 

[Paul_C]

Hi Paul C,
When i asked if you were sure?
That was in response to your suggestion that there was 'no general guidance' for rcd protection in the 16th or prior.
I know this to be incorrect.

I didn't say there was no general guidance about RCD protection; I said there was no general requirement (in the 16th edition) for all sockets to be RCD protected, whether upstairs or downstairs.

There are still exceptions in the 17th edition for sockets intended to supply one fixed appliance and not easily accessible etc.

As a design arguement, if you provided an outdoor socket, which required an RCD, then you could omit rcd for other sockets. However, practically speaking, if you were to provide above mentioned outdoor socket, chances are, it would be from the existing downstair ring. If this were the case, might it be a prudent design choice to put the rcd 'front end' therefore give protection to all sockets on that circuit?

But conversely, one could argue that it would more prudent to provide independent RCD protection (e.g. socket with integral RCD) to avoid an earth fault on outdoor equipment from knocking out most or all of the downstairs sockets.

also, i have seen someone plug an extension in the kitchen, to allow hoovering all round the downstairs and up the stairs without unplugging/plugging.
Following the hoovering, the extension was simply dragged through dining room, past 4 sockets, out to the back garden and the lawnmovwer plugged in.

You now have a situation where the mower in the back garden was being fed from socket at the front icon_confused.gif So from my own personal experience, it was then a foreseeable act, which made it reasonable to expect.

By that example then, what if somebody was upstairs with a long extension lead, and then decides that as it's up there he'll just throw it out of an open window to cut the grass in the back yard below?

That would be a foreseeable act too, surely, so by your reasoning it would then be "reasonable to expect" it to happen, therefore all upstairs sockets should have been RCD protected under the 16th edition as well.

I don't think that the fact that something is merely possible makes it "reasonable to expect" that it will be done. I'd say that there has to be a reasonable likelihood of it happening, not just the possibility, otherwise the wording in the 16th edition would have required every socket outlet to be RCD protected.

 

[Paul_C]

using a definition of a location from the 16th does not mean that the 16th is what the law requires you to follow.

I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply, that it did/does.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but that was the implication I got from your comment. I said:

But if I wanted to wire my house to American or Australian standards, there's nothing in the Building Regs. to stop me.

To which you replied (emphasis added):

True, except for a "special location" - BS 7671:2001 currently has precedence in the event of any conflict of definitions of "relevant zones", and the definitions in BS 7671:2001 therefore have legal relevance, despite the BS not being a statutory document.

I took that to mean that you thought that following BS7671 was a legal requirement in special locations.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was careful to precede the relevant sentence with "AFAIK",

As it turns out that was a superfluous qualifier - you were quite correct, the latest iteration of the SI does refer specifically to BS 7671:2001

If you say so.

and I'm perfectly content for you to think that you know better.

Is there some doubt in your mind over whether the only reference to BS 7671:2001 is in the definition of the term "special location"?

If so, please say, and I or any number of people here can remove your doubt.

If you inferred something different, then I hereby accept that your inference was reasonable, and devoid of dreadfulness, but the fact remains that such an implication was not in my mind.

Fair enough.

And just in case you're overwhelmed by an uncontrollable urge to tell me that you think it's impossible to give an opinion until I clarify my questions, please take it as read that I hereby note your point, in advance, but I still wish to wait and see if anyone else has intuited my intent.

OK - it's your question. I would have thought that it'd be more efficient for you to make it as clear as possible, but if you want to wait and see if anybody manages to discover by intuition what you mean then that's up to you. I fear though that you risk people getting bored before they come up with an opinion which you think is relevant.

You see the problem is that your question as written cannot bring forth any useful opinions.

If it hasn't [been so amended], then how does a punter resolve the conflict in terms of lawfulness?

There is no conflict - it is impossible for there to be one, for the simple and unassailable fact that...

Is it correct to work to the 16th Edition, i.e. by the letter of the law,

....the letter of the law does not require that work be done to the 16th.

If you're asking for opinions on how to resolve a conflict between two things, when in truth one of those two things simply doesn't exist, then you're asking for opinions on an entirely fictitious scenario. You may find such opinions interesting, or even entertaining, but they are of no practical use.

If we return to the first version of your question

I was merely soliciting opinions about how a punter would resolve the apparent conflict that arises from the explicit reference and the general "reasonable provision" requirement.

the answer is that they should read the legislation more carefully, and see that the explicit reference is relevant only to Building Regulation 12(5)b, and not to Regulations 4 or 6 or to P1 of Schedule 1.

Once they do that the "apparent" conflict is no more.

And just in case you feel compelled to tell me that I must entirely lack self-respect, and am therefore sub-human, let's just save a lot of time and assume that I must do, and that I am.

How much longer are you going to behave like this?

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Hi Paul C,
When i asked if you were sure?
That was in response to your suggestion that there was 'no general guidance' for rcd protection in the 16th or prior.
I know this to be incorrect.

I didn't say there was no general guidance about RCD protection; I said there was no general requirement (in the 16th edition) for all sockets to be RCD protected, whether upstairs or downstairs.

Sorry if i misunderstood your post from sunday evening, but i read that to mean that you felt there was no guidance, in general, for RCD protection for sockets. I felt this was incorrect and pointed out the relevant reg.
There are still exceptions in the 17th edition for sockets intended to supply one fixed appliance and not easily accessible etc.

Agreed, use of 8436x, surface mount are other examples.

As a design arguement, if you provided an outdoor socket, which required an RCD, then you could omit rcd for other sockets. However, practically speaking, if you were to provide above mentioned outdoor socket, chances are, it would be from the existing downstair ring. If this were the case, might it be a prudent design choice to put the rcd 'front end' therefore give protection to all sockets on that circuit?

But conversely, one could argue that it would more prudent to provide independent RCD protection (e.g. socket with integral RCD) to avoid an earth fault on outdoor equipment from knocking out most or all of the downstairs sockets.

Agreed, that is a valid solution, but other solutions are valid and i suppose the adopted method for a given install would end up being a cost-based decision. Also, that option may not have even been considered under a design to the 16th, i dont believe the 16th has much of an equivalent to the 17th's 314.1. One solution uses 2 RCD's to protect 2 outlets. Another solution uses 1 RCD to protect all sockets on that circuit.

also, i have seen someone plug an extension in the kitchen, to allow hoovering all round the downstairs and up the stairs without unplugging/plugging.
Following the hoovering, the extension was simply dragged through dining room, past 4 sockets, out to the back garden and the lawnmovwer plugged in.

You now have a situation where the mower in the back garden was being fed from socket at the front icon_confused.gif So from my own personal experience, it was then a foreseeable act, which made it reasonable to expect.

By that example then, what if somebody was upstairs with a long extension lead, and then decides that as it's up there he'll just throw it out of an open window to cut the grass in the back yard below?

I think there are starting to be a lot of 'what if's' creeping in here. We can take this to the Nth degree here, but what for? The reg we are talking about did exist, but has been superceded. How you chose to interpret it was your choice as a designer and a competent person.
its started to become a little bit contrived here now. I was trying to make a point, albeit not very clearly, that the regulation existed, and that in my opinion, there may not have been RCD on the upstairs sockets in relation to the OP's problem, this would have needed to be assessed. The OP has clarified this and there is nothing more to consider.
That would be a foreseeable act too, surely, so by your reasoning it would then be "reasonable to expect" it to happen, therefore all upstairs sockets should have been RCD protected under the 16th edition as well.

I don't think that the fact that something is merely possible makes it "reasonable to expect" that it will be done. I'd say that there has to be a reasonable likelihood of it happening, not just the possibility, otherwise the wording in the 16th edition would have required every socket outlet to be RCD protected.

What if the single outdoor socket, which was the only one protected by an rcd had a water pump or garden lights permantly connected to it? The owner might elect leave to pump plugged in and just used the socket in the hallway?

I think this thread is become a bit pointless and will never ever reach a conclusion. The OP has got his answer and we could argue this til the cows come home.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think that the fact that something is merely possible makes it "reasonable to expect" that it will be done. I'd say that there has to be a reasonable likelihood of it happening, not just the possibility

Mikhail - if you want an example of that which you should be able to relate to - it is possible that next time you get into your car and drive off that your family and friends will never see you alive again, maybe, even, as a result of you behaving like a numpty or doing something not allowed, or inexplicable or lazy.

I think that you and your family and friends would find it very distressing to think it reasonable to expect never to see you alive again...

using a definition of a location from the 16th does not mean that the 16th is what the law requires you to follow.

I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply, that it did/does.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but that was the implication I got from your comment.

Glad it's not just me!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry if i misunderstood your post from sunday evening, but i read that to mean that you felt there was no guidance, in general, for RCD protection for sockets. I felt this was incorrect and pointed out the relevant reg.
.
.
.
Agreed, use of 8436x, surface mount are other examples.
.
.
.
Agreed, that is a valid solution, but other solutions are valid and i suppose the adopted method for a given install would end up being a cost-based decision. Also, that option may not have even been considered under a design to the 16th, i dont believe the 16th has much of an equivalent to the 17th's 314.1. One solution uses 2 RCD's to protect 2 outlets. Another solution uses 1 RCD to protect all sockets on that circuit.
.
.
.
I think there are starting to be a lot of 'what if's' creeping in here. We can take this to the Nth degree here, but what for? The reg we are talking about did exist, but has been superceded. How you chose to interpret it was your choice as a designer and a competent person.

its started to become a little bit contrived here now. I was trying to make a point, albeit not very clearly, that the regulation existed, and that in my opinion, there may not have been RCD on the upstairs sockets in relation to the OP's problem, this would have needed to be assessed. The OP has clarified this and there is nothing more to consider.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

BAS, what did you mean by falsely claimed?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Your post included a lot of text which you presented as quote from Paul_C.

Some of the text was his, but you inserted text of your own - none of the words I quoted above were written by him, but you put them into what you said was a quote.

 

[Paul_C]

....the letter of the law does not require that work be done to the 16th.

Or, indeed, to any other edition of BS7671.

The only legal requirement for the actual work is that:

Reasonable provision shall be made in the design, installation, inspection and testing of electrical installations in order to protect persons from fire or injury.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Your post included a lot of text which you presented as quote from Paul_C.

Some of the text was his, but you inserted text of your own - none of the words I quoted above were written by him, but you put them into what you said was a quote.

OIC, my apologies, that wasn't my intention, but i see your point.

although I know you know, just for clarity to anyone else reading this, the text in bold was indeed written by me, but i also failed to bolden ( if such a word exists) the last part.

I really should stick to writing my own posts and not editing/quoting poorly, lazy of me.

 

[Paul_C]

Just insert [ /quote ] and [ quote ] tags (without the spaces) as many times as necessary to close the quote, insert your comment, and then re-start the quote again.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I really should stick to writing my own posts and not editing/quoting poorly, lazy of me.

A bit extreme - quoting specific parts of posts to reply to that part can be useful.

You've worked out how to highlight text and click the button to put [ b] [ /b] tags round it - it's not rocket science to highlight text and click a button to put [ quote] [ /quote] tags in.