IIRC it was at the behest of industry, who disliked the costs, and who found a sympathetic ear in the shape of a government led by a certain female PM who many tradesmen still think was the best thing that ever happened to this country.
Conduit for running cable behind plaster
- Thread starter Blitherer
- Start date
She inspired me so much that I left the country for 14 years. Came back and Tony Blair was on the thrown. Realised too late that I only bought a one way ticket back
P
Paul_C
If you want to comply fully with the current edition of BS7671 that's true, but it really needs to be put into perspective. A mere three years or so ago before the "RCD everything you can think of and then some" approach was adopted, nobody would have thought twice about running those extra switch drops without changing the circuit to an RCD-protected one.
Realistically, you almost certainly have every other switch drop in the house not RCD protected and running less than 2 inches from the surface anyway, so adding a couple of extra such cables for new lights without fitting an RCD is not exactly going to make a huge difference to the existing installation in that respect.
You either comply with BS7671 or you don't.
You can't pick and choose which bits you want to comply with as and when it suits you.
Do you not bother installing main bonding as that didn't used to be a requirement either?
You can't pick and choose which bits you want to comply with as and when it suits you.
Do you not bother installing main bonding as that didn't used to be a requirement either?
In literal terms, that's just a statement of the obvious. However, I don't think what you say is really the case in practice. Given that it's non-manadatory, one can decide not to comply (i.e.'fully') with BS7671, yet nevertheless also decide to adhere to the vast majority of its provisions.
I wouldn't mind betting that if one looked hard enough at the work of even the most competant and consciencious of electricians, one would usually find at least some technical (maybe 'trivial') non-compliance, as a result of the application of common sense.
Kind Regards, John.
There is often subjectivity in the interpretation of BS7671 and often common sense in the implementation. There is sometimes a devout obedience to BS7671 with no common sense in the room.
This comes back to our old debate about experience and knowledge. BS7671 is not a law but it might get you out of trouble in a courtroom if you strictly obeyed it. However, there are occasions where had you not strictly obeyed BS7671 then you may not be in court to start with
Indeed, and I would hope that not many people here would criticise me for saying that is quite ridiculous.
As you know, I'm not an electrician, but I wouldn't contemplate doing a fraction of what I've done electrically in my time if I felt that my knowledge was only at the level that could be acquired in a 5-day (or even 'few week') course.
So long as those are the only two options, then you're obviously right that 'some training is better than none'. However, there is obviously a third potential option - to have a registration/licensing system which actually requires them to have been properly trained, and also remain competant and up-to-date during their career. In this increasingly regulated world, a 'serious' (and policed) licensing system would not be at all out of place, particularly not in what is at least partially a safety-critical industry. Whilst I am generally not a believer in the 'Nanny State', I do think that the public deserve to be protected from potentially dangerous tradesmen, whom they currently probably have great difficulty in identifying as such.
Kind Regards, John.
P
Paul_C
Precisely. There is absolutely no obligation to follow BS7671, and this is one of those occasions where even if one is adhering generally to most of its provisions, a little leeway for what's reasonable in the circumstances can be applied and not insist on following every last little detail.
Exactly. The pedants would, of course (correctly) say that the installation is then 'non-compliant' - but, provided the deviations were based in reasoned common sense (and, before anyone suggests this one, reasoned common sense that would probably stand up in a courtroom), what I say about that is "So What?".
Kind Regards, John.
IF you choose not to work to BS 7671 (which you are at liberty to do), what alternative would you use to ensure that you comply with P1?
I can remember when cars didn't have to have seatbelts.
And a time when they had them but it was not mandatory to use them.
Just because a particular level of safety was considered acceptable in the past does not mean it is considered acceptable now.
I can remember when cars didn't have to have seatbelts.
And a time when they had them but it was not mandatory to use them.
Just because a particular level of safety was considered acceptable in the past does not mean it is considered acceptable now.
P
Paul_C
How about BS7671:2001 ?
We're talking about something which was considered perfectly acceptable by BS7671 as recently as 2008. That's 2008, not 1908. Some of the very people who will now seem to get upset about the thought of installing a cable less than 2 inches below the surface without RCD protection are the same people who were happily installing hundreds of cables like that for a good few years before. Just because the latest version of BS7671 says to provide RCD protection does not mean that all those installations done before that time are in any way unsafe.
As can I. January 31, 1983 was a bad day for freedom of choice.
So are you seriously suggesting that not providing RCD protection on cables less than 2 inches from the surface will result in an installation which is not reasonably safe?
How about it - It no longer exists end of story.
No one is saying that - and BS7671 (2008) quite clearly states that fact.
Ban-All-Sheds said:
You really are talking through your backside now. In a previous existance, I lost count the number of times I picked or scooped up bits of brain matter or parts of limbs, or in one case two eyes attached to the broken windscreen from people who didn't wear their seatbelt. How many people are still alive today because they 'belted up' - 66,000 and counting. So sod your freedom of choice - I'm for anything that makes things safer - and having the additional protection of RCD's and following the guidance in BS7671 is the best way to achieve that.
Superseded.
The past is the past.
Superseded is superseded.
It's not considered perfectly acceptable any more.
Before is before.
Now is now.
Creating a new instance of that is not considered safe enough now.
T**t.
Yes.
And I have no intention, no matter what, of once more trying to get you to understand what the word "reasonable" means, so you might as well go outside and howl at the moon as to try to resurrect your stupid arguments.
Safety standards have improved, and the fact that you don't like it is of zero importance. Work done NOW should comply with the standards of NOW.
That's obviously a different question.
Give the extreme vagueness of Part 1 ("Reasonable provision...."), the only people who could actually tell you what they would accept (or what they would contest) as a stated means of complying with P1 are the particular LABC themselves.
It is widely stated (including often here) that compliance with BS7671 'is one way of showing compliance with P1'. Whilst that is undoubtedly how things work in practice, that's because of the way LABCs choose to interpret/apply P1, not because that's what P1 actually says (since it doesn't!). Indeed, there's nothing in P1 which prevents LABC from saying that they are not satisfied with P1 compliance even when work is BS7671 compliant. Conversely, since P1 has chosen not to reference BS7671, I don't think they can really say the absence of BS7671 compliance, per se, automatically indicates non-compliance with P1 (an interesting point if they found themselves facing Judical Review).
So, I guess one way to proceed would be to present a reasoned engineering argument as to why one believes that "Reasonable provsions...." have been applied and leave it for them to challenge that argument if they so wished (remembering that, as a public body, they are susceptible to Judicial Review).
Same here - and the time before car seat belts even existed. ... and, FWIW, I am as passionately against their legally compelled use (by adults) as I am a passionate believer for their use!
Very true, but they've missed their chance here. If they want something to be 'legally unacceptable', they have to put it into Statute, just as they did with the wretched seatbelt legislation. They could so easily have written a requirement for BS7671-compliance into legislation (i.e. mention it in P1), but they chose not to. Domestic wiring is therefore currently in the same position as setbelts were prior to the current legislation being enacted.
Kind Regards, John.
A case of Morton's fork then
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
