Terminating unused electric cable

[JohnW2]

And of course, the number of deaths from fires attributed to electrical causes is somewhat higher than the number of electrocutions. Maybe we should require all electrical components to be non-combustible? ... Oh, hang on a minute...

I doubt that all that many of those deaths are due to combustion of electrical components, per se - its the houses themselves and everything in them that needs to be "non-combustible" (and let's hope that 'they' don't think of that one ).

... and they probably ought to ban gas whilst they're at it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The general point there is, indeed, interesting - indicating that at least some people, and maybe even some laws, might not regard compliance with BS7671 as necessarily providing an acceptable degree of safety.

I'm less convinced about the specific point being made in that discussion. Sure, the BS7671 (and wider) basis for RCD protection and touch voltages is such that even compliant installations could leave 5%, or whatever, of the population at risk of fatal shock - but what that means in absolute terms has to be balanced against the 'inconvenience' (to millions) which would result from 'tightening' the requirements.

I think also that the specific point lies in territory outwith any reasonably to be expected competence of an ordinary electrician. I really cannot see any court deciding that someone who had complied with the Wiring Regulations, which the official guidance says he should have done, had not in fact made reasonable provision for safety because a combination of fallible components and abnormal physiology meant that a small %ge of the population was at risk.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fair enough.

Particularly if (as suggested) one was wanting to rely on a relatively recent 'withdrawn standard', I suppose one of one's arguments would/could be that working to the 'withdrawn Standard' was considered to be safe less than a decade ago, and neither physics nor the susceptibility of buildings or human beings to damage have changed appreciably since then!

Kind Regards, John

That is so, but isn't the point that you would have to show good reasons for not using the current standard, not that an earlier edition is good enough?

Yes, I know what the law actually requires, and yes I know that the guidance (which is only guidance) says that Electrical installations should be designed and installed in accordance with BS 7671:2008 incorporating Amendment No 1:2011, not must, but as I asked PBC earlier, how far would you push it? Even though a BCO would be wrong to say that working to BS 7671:2001, are you really going to go to court over it because you're a 17th Edition refusenik who, basically, simply doesn't want to comply with the current edition?

 

[JohnW2]

I think also that the specific point lies in territory outwith any reasonably to be expected competence of an ordinary electrician.

I agree. As I said, I was not happy with that specific example.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, I'm still waiting for a plausible one where compliance with BS 7671:2008 would not meet the requirements of Part P.

 

[JohnW2]

... are you really going to go to court over it because you're a 17th Edition refusenik who, basically, simply doesn't want to comply with the current edition?

No, because I would not use PBC's approach of claiming to have worked to some obsolete edition of BS7671. If, hypothetically, I "went to court", it would be to present my own argument that I had made "reasonable provision for safety" etc., without reference to any obsolete edition of BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Well, I'm still waiting for a plausible one where compliance with BS 7671:2008 would not meet the requirements of Part P.

I think you're forgetting how this all started ....

That's probably more-or-less true in practical terms but, in terms of what the law (the Building Regulations) "actually says", there is no absolute guarantee that compliance with BS7671 automatically means compliance with the Building Regulations.

All I pointed out is that there is "no absolute guarantee" and, so long as the law consists a very vague statement, containing the word "reasonable", and hence requiring a subjective judgement (by a court or whoever), there surely cannot be any "absolute guarantee", can there? However, as I said, in practical terms, demonstration of compliance with BS7671 is virtually always going to be adequate.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Do withdrawn and obsolete British Standards have an official existence? It's a serious point - it may be that there is no longer any such thing as BS7671:2001.

Perhaps according to the British Standards Institute it no longer exists because it's been superseded, but it certainly existed at one time, so the contents contained within it can be referenced (unless every single copy of it has been destroyed so that nobody can be sure what it actually said).

You could try that, but I wonder how far you would be prepared to push it if they said "No - won't do"?

No idea - I wouldn't have been telling "them" what I was doing in the first place!

A legitimate challenge to that would be to demand a technical justification for the deviation(s) from from the current edition.

But if "they" are following the law, as "they" should be doing, the question of why somebody has chosen to follow an older edition of some standard instead of the current edition is not the point. The question, as far as legal requirements are concerned, is merely whether the installation is reasonably safe. Is anyone here seriously going to argue that an installation carried out today which complies with BS7671:2001 but not with BS7671:2008 is not reasonably safe?

No, because I would not use PBC's approach of claiming to have worked to some obsolete edition of BS7671. If, hypothetically, I "went to court", it would be to present my own argument that I had made "reasonable provision for safety" etc., without reference to any obsolete edition of BS7671.

As indeed I would do if, hypothetically, I were in that position. I would argue that I've chosen cables of a size suitable for the load, provided adequate overcurrent protection, etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All I pointed out is that there is "no absolute guarantee" and, so long as the law consists a very vague statement, containing the word "reasonable", and hence requiring a subjective judgement (by a court or whoever), there surely cannot be any "absolute guarantee", can there? However, as I said, in practical terms, demonstration of compliance with BS7671 is virtually always going to be adequate.

In practical terms it will always be adequate. The scenario which concerns you is a court ruling that an installation designed and installed to BS 7671 is not even reasonably safe. That is simply never going to happen.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps according to the British Standards Institute it no longer exists because it's been superseded, but it certainly existed at one time, so the contents contained within it can be referenced (unless every single copy of it has been destroyed so that nobody can be sure what it actually said).

If officially it no longer exists then officially there is no such thing as "compliance with BS 7671:2001" to claim.

No idea - I wouldn't have been telling "them" what I was doing in the first place!

Depending on what you were doing you might have no choice, unless for example you wanted to end up with an extension, or a loft conversion, or even an entire house with no Building Regulations certificate.

But if "they" are following the law, as "they" should be doing, the question of why somebody has chosen to follow an older edition of some standard instead of the current edition is not the point.

Indeed. But what if they do? How far would you push it just because you didn't want to comply with the current edition?

The question, as far as legal requirements are concerned, is merely whether the installation is reasonably safe.

Indeed. But what if they only accept one way to ensure that? How far would you push it just because you didn't want to comply with BS7671:2008?

Is anyone here seriously going to argue that an installation carried out today which complies with BS7671:2001 but not with BS7671:2008 is not reasonably safe?

No. But what if they do? How far would you push it just because you didn't want to comply with BS7671:2008?

If, hypothetically, I "went to court", it would be to present my own argument that I had made "reasonable provision for safety" etc., without reference to any obsolete edition of BS7671.

But would you? Would you really initiate legal action against a council because you didn't want to comply with BS7671:2008?

As indeed I would do if, hypothetically, I were in that position. I would argue that I've chosen cables of a size suitable for the load, provided adequate overcurrent protection, etc.

Indeed. But what if they don't accept that argument? How far would you push it just because you didn't want to comply with BS7671:2008?

 

[JohnW2]

If, hypothetically, I "went to court", it would be to present my own argument that I had made "reasonable provision for safety" etc., without reference to any obsolete edition of BS7671.

But would you? Would you really initiate legal action against a council because you didn't want to comply with BS7671:2008?

Of course not - why on earth would I want to do that? If any legal action were initiated, it would surely be initiated by the council, against me (for alleged non-compliance with Part P) - although, as I said, even that is, in practice, essentially 'hypothetical'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

In practical terms it will always be adequate. The scenario which concerns you is a court ruling that an installation designed and installed to BS 7671 is not even reasonably safe. That is simply never going to happen.

As I said at the very start, in practice you are almost certainly correct. However, I stick with my initial statement that there can never be an "absolute guarantee" about the ruling of a Court in relation to a law which contains the word "reasonable".

In fact, as I implied before, given that BS7671 contains vague 'catch-all' regulations not dissimilar in wording to Part P, if something were deemed to be non-compliant with Part P, one could probably argue that it was also non-compliant with BS7671. However, as I said, I was really thinking/talking about compliance with 'detail' regs in BS7671, not the vague 'catch-all' regulations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

If officially it no longer exists then officially there is no such thing as "compliance with BS 7671:2001" to claim.

I could write my own standard incorporating all the essential features for reasonable safety, but it wouldn't be recognized officially anywhere. Does that mean it would not exist or that I could not comply with the contents of it?

As I said before, unless every single copy of BS7671:2001 is destroyed so that nobody can ever be sure of its contents, how can it not exist for the purposes of saying "I intend to follow this set of rules," regardless of whether any official or pseudo-official body considers them superseded?

No. But what if they do? How far would you push it just because you didn't want to comply with BS7671:2008?

But would you? Would you really initiate legal action against a council because you didn't want to comply with BS7671:2008?

Of course not - why on earth would I want to do that? If any legal action were initiated, it would surely be initiated by the council, against me (for alleged non-compliance with Part P) - although, as I said, even that is, in practice, essentially 'hypothetical'.

Exactly. Why on earth would I have ever considered taking the council to court? If, in this hypothetical situation, I had ever found myself in court it would be because the council had initiated action and I would be defending my actions. And it would be for the council to prove that my work was not reasonably safe.

But in practice, the chances of it ending up in court are remote, unless the work done is of such poor quality that I don't think anyone could seriously try to claim it as being reasonably safe. Local authorities - at least the last I heard - really go after only the most extreme cases. Do you really think they'd try to take somebody to court for, say, merely adding a cable drop and socket without providing RCD protection, assuming that they somehow even found out about it in the first place?

 

[JohnW2]

But in practice, the chances of it ending up in court are remote, unless the work done is of such poor quality that I don't think anyone could seriously try to claim it as being reasonably safe. Local authorities - at least the last I heard - really go after only the most extreme cases. Do you really think they'd try to take somebody to court for, say, merely adding a cable drop and socket without providing RCD protection, assuming that they somehow even found out about it in the first place?

Indeed, that's the reality. In fact, in practice, I think that such cases probably only ever get to court if someone has been harmed or killed and, in that situation, prosecution for failing to comply with Part P of the Building Regs (if they even bothered to bring such a charge) would probably fade into insignificance in comparison with the other charges one would probably be facing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

PBC, you seem to be missing the point about supersession. The fact that a standard has been superseded means that a group of experts has decided it is no longer adequate. By implication, a new installation to the superseded standard is also inadequate.