MSF100 Switch fuses and amended regs

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, they clearly have that power de facto.

They only have that power over people who give it to them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am saying that, although that might be some people's personal view, the imprecise nature of the reg in BS7671 means that it's quite impossible for anyone to know whether that view is correct.

And equally impossible for anyone to know if it is incorrect.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Also, don't forget that the metal enclosure doesn't have to be particularly 'clever'. All that the regs appear to require is that it is made of a "non-combustible" material (say metal), without any requirement as regards 'fire containment' etc. It would therefore seem that it would be technically compliant even if it were full of holes (and there would not even be a requirement as regards IP rating if, as would be the case, it was not 'enclosing' any live parts)!

Not according to this:

http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/55/consumer-units/index.cfm

 

[JohnW2]

Not according to this: http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/55/consumer-units/index.cfm

That's all very well, but none of that is "actually said", or even implied, in BS7671. I don't think that the IET's comic is any more 'binding' as to what has to be done to satisfy BS7671 than an Approved Document is as to what has to be done to satisfy the Building Regs, is it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

And equally impossible for anyone to know if it is incorrect.

Exactly. I should probably have written "...whether or not...".

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

They only have that power over people who give it to them.

True, but as John wrote, most people prefer to take the line of least resistance when dealing with Building Control.

 

[JohnW2]

True, but as John wrote, most people prefer to take the line of least resistance when dealing with Building Control.

Indeed - and, as I said, even though "most people" probably believe that 'plastic' CUs to BS EN 61439-3 (and no more) are probably compliant with the intent/spirit of BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

"most people" probably believe that 'plastic' CUs to BS EN 61439-3 (and no more) are probably compliant

I'd have thought that "most people" don't even think about it.

 

[JohnW2]

I'd have thought that "most people" don't even think about it.

OK - "most of those people who think about it" (which I believe involves most of us here who have been involved in the discussions).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's all very well, but none of that is "actually said", or even implied, in BS7671. I don't think that the IET's comic is any more 'binding' as to what has to be done to satisfy BS7671 than an Approved Document is as to what has to be done to satisfy the Building Regs, is it?

Precisely.

Not analogous, but all this reminds me in spirit of a couple of comments I've read - one a while ago, about Los Angeles:

"But if you scratch the surface of LA, underneath you find.... more surface"​

And one about our Foreign Secretary from his tutor at Oxford:

"Mr Johnson is a man of hidden shallows"​

The more one looks at this, the more one thinks, the more regulations and standards one considers, the more rubbishy 421.1.201 becomes.

If I were working as an electrician, I'd have to be mindful of what my customers wanted, but ignoring that concern, or considering it as someone other than that signing an IEC, I would not hesitate to install a BS EN 61439-3 conformant plastic CU. And I wouldn't even list it as a departure.

 

[JohnW2]

If I were working as an electrician, I'd have to be mindful of what my customers wanted, but ignoring that concern, or considering it as someone other than that signing an IEC, I would not hesitate to install a BS EN 61439-3 conformant plastic CU. And I wouldn't even list it as a departure.

If I were working for myself, I would undoubtedly do likewise (provided that I believed that whoever was 'supervising'/overseeing/inspecting my work was going to accept it). However, if I were working as a self-certifying electrician, I imagine that I would probably only do it if I were sure that the customer fully understood and accepted the potential hassle which could arise if/when an EICR was undertaken.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

provided that I believed that whoever was 'supervising'/overseeing/inspecting my work was going to accept it

Tempered, of course, by what we discussed re fans and AD F, I'd be prepared - might even enjoy - saying "see you in court, where you will have to PROVE that what I've done is not reasonably safe".

 

[JohnW2]

Tempered, of course, by what we discussed re fans and AD F, I'd be prepared - might even enjoy - saying "see you in court, where you will have to PROVE that what I've done is not reasonably safe".

That's all very well, but if it were just a case of a BCO refusing to issue a Completion Certificate (with no threat of 'taking me to court'), I probably wouldn't want the hassle, and probable expense, of taking him, or his department, to court, even if I could work out or discover what sort of legal action one might contemplate in such a situation.

Kind Regards, John