Landlords test certificate.

[securespark]

Jesus, do you lot have sex lives?

Well, I'm married....

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!

[Links hands] Is anybody there? Is anybody theeeeeeeeeeeeeeere???

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't see why not, if the point of connection to the rfc is near enough to the centre that the requirements for protection of parallel conductors are satisfied.

IIRC they can't be, if there are other loads elsewhere along it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed so, but it is apparent that BAS's main point is nothing to do with the degree of cable protection per se. The point he is labouring is that, because of what 433.1.204 "actually says" (and doesn't "actually say"), a ring final loses its dispensation to be wired in cable with CCC ≥20A protected by a 32A OPD if anything other than "an accessory to BS1363" is connected to the ring.

I wouldn't have to labour it if you would just accept what the words say, and stop thinking that it's OK for you to start banging on about the "common sense" of ignoring what they say for the simple reason that you don't like what they say and want to do something different.

 

[JohnW2]

I wouldn't have to labour it if you would just accept what the words say, and stop thinking that it's OK for you to start banging on about the "common sense" of ignoring what they say for the simple reason that you don't like what they say and want to do something different.

That's not the "simple reason". The 'simple reason' is that I accept what the words of 120.3 "actually say" (not what you would like them to say) - which, AFAICS, enables me do work which is non-compliant with any other specific regulation, provided that I can demonstrate that what I have done is no less safe than would be achieved by compliance with that specific regulation. You obviously don't like it (quite probably because it has the capacity to neutralise many of the arguments about 'compliance' which you produce), but that's what the regulation "actually says".

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

But you think that interpretating is acceptable. Are you saying that, in general, it is OK for people to "interpret" regulations in a way which supports your position, but not when it undermines it?

Not at all, but that seems to be what you are doing. I'm relying on what's been said above regarding 120.3 as I don't have a copy, but if all it says is, effectively, that you are free to disregard any other specific regulation so long as what you do provides an equivalent or better level of safety, then that means that you don't have to comply with the specific requirement about a ring feeding only BS1363 accessories so long as what you do is just as safe. You seem to want to "interpret" that as having an extra clause tacked on which says "only so far as such deviations shall be permissible to the extent necessary to allow the use of new types of wiring material not yet in existence at the time of publication of these regulations."

You take the change to mean that they wanted to change the meaning, or to clarify what they intended it to say.

Why else would something be changed, unless the intent was either to (a) change what it clearly said before into something different, or (b) clarify something which was previously ambiguous?

But when it comes to a regulation which they have not materially changed for at least 15 years you refuse to accept that that means they are happy with the meaning as written, and consider that it quite clearly expresses their intentions.

Which regulation - The one pertaining to rings feeding only BS1363 accessories? I don't dispute that (according to what's been posted above) it says that rings as defined shall feed only BS1363 accessories. But 120.3 appears to give dispensation to ignore that regulation (and, indeed, any other specific regulation).

There is no reason whatsoever why you cannot comply with only having BS 1363 accessories supplied through a ring final, but you just don't want to.

I don't think anyone is saying that you cannot comply, since obviously you can. The point is that it does not appear to be necessary to comply with that specific requirement in order to claim compliance with BS7671 as a whole.

 

[stillp]

I don't dispute that (according to what's been posted above) it says that rings as defined shall feed only BS1363 accessories.

No it doesn't. It says that "Accessories to BS1363 may be supplied through a ring final circuit... ... protected by a 30A or 32A protective device..."

The "may" giving permission to use a larger protective device rating than might otherwise be the case.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think anyone is saying that you cannot comply, since obviously you can. The point is that it does not appear to be necessary to comply with that specific requirement in order to claim compliance with BS7671 as a whole.

That does, indeed, appear to be what 120.3 "actually says".

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Again, you have seen a regulation which you do not like, and therefore you seek to find ways to rationalise your refusal to comply with it, and to justify your contravention of it, by wittering on about "what they really intended", about "common sense" (funny how in your eyes that always equates to "let's find a way to not do what they say", rather than "let's try and comply").

I don't need to try and rationalize any refusal to comply with some regulation, since - if I were ever to return to the U.K. and start wiring my own home there again - I really wouldn't care if the result didn't comply fully with BS7671. And no, I don't think I have ever actually connected some protective device directly on a ring other than a regular FCU in the past, nor can I see it being something I would set out to do specifically (not least because if were to ever be in that position again, I doubt I would be installing rings anyway since I don't really like them).

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.

Did they not also write that that specific regulation may be disregarded so long as the result is just as safe? It doesn't matter if you think they intended to say something else - They wrote what they did.

 

[PBC_1966]

No it doesn't. It says that "Accessories to BS1363 may be supplied through a ring final circuit... ... protected by a 30A or 32A protective device..."

The "may" giving permission to use a larger protective device rating than might otherwise be the case.

Sorry, I lost track of that earlier part of the argument as I don't have a copy of the regulation. But either way, that doesn't affect the issue of 120.3 overriding that so long as the result is just as safe.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I presume it comes from his belief that (from the words of 433.1.204) if a ring final ("with or without spurs") 'supplies' something which is not a BS1363 accessory (i.e. if the first thing the electrons hit {either in the ring itself or in a spur} is a non-BS1363-accessory) that it invalidates the OPD/CCC dispensation for ring finals.

It is indeed. Although it doesn't have to be the "first thing" - it could be anywhere on the ring, or on a spur from the ring.

But please note that my 'belief' is not based on some article of non-evidential faith, it is not based on some "interpretation", and it is not based on a rationalisation prompted by a desire to do something outwith the regulation.

433.1.204 says "Accessories to BS 1363 may be supplied through....".

It does not say that anything else "may be supplied through...".

It really does not.

 

[JohnW2]

I presume it comes from his belief that (from the words of 433.1.204) if a ring final ("with or without spurs") 'supplies' something which is not a BS1363 accessory (i.e. if the first thing the electrons hit {either in the ring itself or in a spur} is a non-BS1363-accessory) that it invalidates the OPD/CCC dispensation for ring finals.

It is indeed. Although it doesn't have to be the "first thing" - it could be anywhere on the ring, or on a spur from the ring.

[abomination of quoting/formatting ignored].
Perhaps I wasn't totally clear. When I said 'first thing', I was talking about the 'first thing' that electrons encountered in the path from CU to a particular end load (or end accessory) - not anything to do with what part of the ring/spurs we were talking about.

In other words, I was trying to include the scenario in which something was interspersed in that path between the CU and the end accessory or load. For example, you presumably accept that an unfused spur supplying one double socket is compliant. However, it seems that you would say that it was non-compliant if (for whatever reason), say, a 20A MCB (i.e. not an "accessory to BS1363) were introduced between the ring and socket - is that correct? Conversely, although I'm not so sure about this, I suspect that you might say that the arrangement was still compliant if 'the first thing' encountered was a BS1363 accessory, which was then followed by some non-BS1363 item - e.g. if the ring 'supplied' a 13A FCU, downstream of which (for whatever reason) was, say, a B3 or B6 MCB - is that also correct?

Kind Regards, John