Reworded RCD Poll

[PBC_1966]

If I wanted people to be obliged to fit RCDs whenever they installed an additional socket, would I write "All additional sockets must be protected by an RCD" or would I write "the installation must be reasonably safe?"

Or if you wanted to make it a legal requirement for new sockets to be protected by a 30mA RCD or better, and for earth wires to have green/yellow sleeving added, and everything else that BS7671 now requires for compliance with that standard, you could just write a law which says "Electrical installations must comply with every requirement of BS7671:2008 as amended to 2011" or whatever.

If the bureaucrats who drafted the legislation requiring "reasonable provision for safety" actually intended that should mean that work should comply in full with BS7671, then why didn't they just say so?

I am musing what the world would be like if people barely able to read, like you, and disposed to ignoring anything they do manage to read, like you, were allowed to write laws.

You do not have to be so personally abusive to people. Do you not realize that it does nothing to support your claim?

depend on whether you wanted your legally-enforceable rules for domestic wiring alterations to end up being several hundred pages long.

There are plenty of other pieces of legislation which are hundreds of pages long, so I don't see why this should be excluded, not that I think it would be of any great benefit as a whole if that were the case.

But as you keep referring to the "relevant British Standard," then as I said above, if the intent had been to force installations to comply with BS7671 the legislation requiring such compliance would have been no longer than the existing regulation that is the current Part P.

That's effectively how it works here: The NFPA publishes the National Electrical Code (generally with a new edition every 3 years), and states either adopt it as is or they derive their own state code from the NEC with whatever amendments they see fit. Then counties and cities adopt the state code, again with their own amendments if they think it necessary. So every local building ordinance doesn't have to set out hundreds of pages of detailed requirements itself, it only needs to say something simple like "Electrical installations shall comply with the California Electrical Code 2007." And then add exceptions or changes if relevant.

If the intent in the U.K. was that installations should follow BS7671, in whole or in part, then it would be quite possible to draft legislation which said as much, legally mandatory compliance either with the standard as a whole or with certain sections of it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

one cannot assume that the view of law as to what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" necessarily has to change because the (not referred to) requirements of BS7671 have changed.

But one can assume that the view of law as to what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" necessarily has to not change when the requirements of BS 7671 change?

 

[JohnD]

But one can assume that the view of law as to what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" necessarily has to not change when the requirements of BS 7671 change?

Which is a convoluted way of saying "could one hold the opinion, or make an assumption, that a court might or might not find that the law might change?"

To which the answer is
"Yes, you can hold an opinion or make an assumption, but that does not make it a fact"

 

[JohnW2]

But one can assume that the view of law as to what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" necessarily has to not change when the requirements of BS 7671 change?

"...one can assume...."?? As has been said, you may "assume" if you wish, and base your personal opinion on your assumptions, but assumptions and opinions are not the same as facts.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, and the status which arises from the action must be a result of that action. If you have made reasonable provision for safety, then how can the result be anything but an installation which is reasonably safe?

Because, as I have explained to you before, the requirement to make reasonable provision for safety applies to what you do, not to [what-is-already-there + what-you-add].

I'm sure you must know what I meant, but let me rephrase that to be more precise then: If you have made reasonable provision for safety in that part of the installation you have added, then how can the result be anything but that part of the installation being reasonably safe?

I'm sure you must know what I meant, but let me rephrase that to be more precise then:

The law requires that you make reasonable provision etc in what you do. It is your actions which have to comply. It is your actions which have to be regarded as making reasonable provision etc. Your actions can only be evaluated against the critieria which apply to them at the time they are done.

So yes - if you have made reasonable provision for safety in that part of the installation you have added, then the result will(should) be that that part of the installation is reasonably safe?

And if what you are doing today is adding sockets or concealed cables then the standard for what you are doing today is that RCD protection should be provided.

If you're using "O.K." in the sense of meaning legal, of course I accept that. Many pieces of legislation take effect from a certain specified date and what was legal yesterday can suddenly become illegal today.

Do you accept the same principle in the context of compliance with regulations, i.e. that what complied yesterday can suddenly become non-compliant today?

How can you separate cause and effect when they are so closely interdependent?

In the same way that I can separate dangerous driving and completing a journey without mishap.

Let's keep it simple and forget about what you've just added versus what was already there. You're building a new house and installating a new electrical system from scratch, starting today. If you make reasonable provision for safety then the result must be a reasonably safe installation; if the result is not an installation which is to be considered reasonably safe, then you can't have made reasonably provision for safety. Do you dispute either of those two statements?

Not fundamentally. Don't forget though that implicit in them is that "reasonably safe" is being judged against the standards of today.

Would you consider the installation as I described it to be reasonably safe?

Would you explain why you think people are going to believe you when you indicate that you really cannot tell the difference between assessing the overall status of an installation and assessing the actions of somebody making an alteration to it?

I knew I shouldn't have tried asking you for a straight answer to a simple question, because obviously you are going to refuse to answer it.

It is no more a simple question with a straightforward answer than is "when did you stop beating your wife?". It is a simplistic question based on the erroneous conflation of what is there and how it got there.

Your question in full was

Would you consider the installation as I described it to be reasonably safe? Or would you tell somebody that you couldn't form an opinion without finding out precisely when those sockets were added, so that if done on one day it was all fine and dandy but if done a couple of days later whoever did it was acting illegally, immorally, etc?

The "Would you.." and "Or would you.." are non sequiturs. Considering if something existing is reasonably safe enough to be allowed to continue to exist and considering if something is reasonably safe enough to be allowed to continue to be newly done are two different things.

I'll make you an offer:

I will stop telling you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new shortly after you stop pretending that there isn't.

When have I ever said that you become responsible for everything that's already there just because you add to it?

When have I ever asserted that you have said that?

The requirement for making reasonable provision for safety applies to what you do, and what you do is separate from what is already there. You cannot use the existence of something which is no longer allowed to be done as a justification for continuing to do it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because your entire argument seems to revolve around BS7671 being the "relevant British Standard" and that therefore if it's reasonable to comply with it and you don't you can't have made reasonable provision for safety, etc.

But not with "every single regulation".

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that isthe British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that isthe British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

But BS 7671 is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

BS 7671 is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not mandatory, it is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Did you not see any of those? Or do you not understand that when I write "a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety" I am not writing "its requirements"?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

it is abuse, it is silly, and it is inaccurate. The fact that you deny it does not make you right.

If you think it will win anyone over to your opinion, or to think you are a reasonable person, you are deluded. It brings no benefit to you or to anyone else.

OK.

Then how about if I call you foolish and deceitful? That's not abusive, or silly, or inaccurate. Do you think it will win anyone over to my opinion, or to cause them to think I am a reasonable person?

 

[JohnD]

it is abuse, it is silly, and it is inaccurate

you can hold an opinion or make an assumption, but that does not make it a fact.

Your obsessive bullying and haranguing does nobody any good, least of all yourself.

Your silly abuse is particularly damaging to your reputation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How specific the statute is is very relevant to the situation being argued here,

No, because it was only mentioned in an attempt to get you, at long last, to accept the principle that things change, and that what you could do yesterday you may not do today.

because it is only your opinion that doing the work under consideration here is illegal.

It is only your opinion that doing the work under consideration here is not illegal.

You may believe it's not possible to make reasonable provision without adding an RCD, but in the absence of legal precedent as to what constitutes "reasonable provision for safety," it is far from clear cut.

You may believe it's possible to make reasonable provision without adding an RCD, but in the absence of legal precedent as to what constitutes "reasonable provision for safety," it is far from clear cut.

Guidelines are not law, as you've stated yourself plenty of times in the past. It is only your opinion that the specific guidelines under consideration in this example need to be followed in order to comply with the law.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Except that you then don't even seem to want to allow the exemption that the guidelines themselves provide.

You don't even seem to want to accept that you have to exercise reasonable skill and care in deciding if that exemption is appropriate.

Again, it is only your opinion that the standard regards it as no longer "safe enough."

B is safer than A.

Version N of a standard says "You must do A".

Version N+1 says "You must do B".

No sane person would think that that is not because the standard no longer regards A as safe enough.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

it is abuse, it is silly, and it is inaccurate

you can hold an opinion or make an assumption, but that does not make it a fact.

Your obsessive bullying and haranguing does nobody any good, least of all yourself.

Your silly abuse is particularly damaging to your reputation.

So it would be abuse, silly and inaccurate, and damaging to my reputation if I call you foolish and deceitful, but it is none of those if you call me the same?

How does that work?

 

[JohnD]

you have missed something.

 

[PBC_1966]

But one can assume that the view of law as to what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" necessarily has to not change when the requirements of BS 7671 change?

No, one should not assume that, given that whenever the word "reasonable" is used in legislation it comes down to what a court may decide was or was not reasonable in the circumstances. But as the law regarding making reasonable provision for safety makes no reference to BS7671, why should anybody merely reading the law to understand what his legal obligations are have any reason to believe that what the law would require does actually change when some standard the law does not refer to changes?

So yes - if you have made reasonable provision for safety in that part of the installation you have added, then the result will(should) be that that part of the installation is reasonably safe?

Which is what I said.

And if what you are doing today is adding sockets or concealed cables then the standard for what you are doing today is that RCD protection should be provided.

The standard set out by BS7671, yes (with possible exemptions, as noted already). That is not necessarily the legal standard of "reasonable provision for safety."

Do you accept the same principle in the context of compliance with regulations, i.e. that what complied yesterday can suddenly become non-compliant today?

Of course. Unless using the exemption for a socket intended for a specific piece of equipment and so labeled, I've never claimed that adding a socket without RCD protection would not be non-compliant with the regulations in today's version of BS7671. What I dispute is your claim that such makes it illegal (and that anybody doing it is immoral, indecent,etc.).

Let's keep it simple and forget about what you've just added versus what was already there. You're building a new house and installating a new electrical system from scratch, starting today. If you make reasonable provision for safety then the result must be a reasonably safe installation; if the result is not an installation which is to be considered reasonably safe, then you can't have made reasonably provision for safety. Do you dispute either of those two statements?

Not fundamentally. Don't forget though that implicit in them is that "reasonably safe" is being judged against the standards of today.

I'm not forgetting that. That's the whole point I made about inspections and coding of things which no longer comply with BS7671. As the standard itself makes clear, inspections are to be carried out and non-compliant things coded on the basis of the current edition of the regulations. not whichever edition was in force at the time it was installed.

So when the committee responsible for the regulations says that non-RCD sockets do not warrant a code which indicates they are not reasonably safe (merely "improvement recommended"), they are judging that based on today's standard of what they consider to be reasonably safe. That's why it makes no sense when you claim that the rules in BS7671 today are those necessary only to achieve that minimum standard of "reasonably safe" and that they don't go beyond that to try and achieve something which is beyond just "reasonably safe."

If every time something in BS7671 changed to impose stricter requirements the committee felt that it made the previous standard no longer reasonably safe, then there would be no need for the C3 code on an inspection (or the code 4 under the previous system), since everything non-compliant with the new version would have to be considered unsafe and thus get some sort of danger code.

Would you consider the installation as I described it to be reasonably safe? Or would you tell somebody that you couldn't form an opinion without finding out precisely when those sockets were added, so that if done on one day it was all fine and dandy but if done a couple of days later whoever did it was acting illegally, immorally, etc?

The "Would you.." and "Or would you.." are non sequiturs.

I thought it was a simple enough question based upon your earlier comments. How simple can we make this? Forget about what the law says, forget about why and when BS7671 changed to require RCD protection, and forget about any legalities linked thereto.

"Mr. Sheds, I'd like you to inspect and test the electrical installation in my house and tell me if, in your opinion, it is reasonably safe."

You find sockets in the living rooms, bedrooms, etc. which are not RCD protected, ditto for buried cables, in fact a standard sort of installation on a TN-S or TN-C-S system of a few years ago. Nothing else is in any way questionable.

What will your verdict be?

 

[JohnW2]

No, one should not assume that, given that whenever the word "reasonable" is used in legislation it comes down to what a court may decide was or was not reasonable in the circumstances. But as the law regarding making reasonable provision for safety makes no reference to BS7671, why should anybody merely reading the law to understand what his legal obligations are have any reason to believe that what the law would require does actually change when some standard the law does not refer to changes?

More than that, I think ... AIUI, the English legal system is such that a court cannot go against a precedent set in the past by a ruling of a court of the same 'level'. Hence, again AIUI, if a court had (for whatever reason) previously ruled that what someone had done a few years ago constituted "making reasonable provisions for safety", then, if someone did those same things today (with or without intervening changes in BS7671), only a 'higher level' court could go against that precedent and rule that the same work no longed constituted "making reasonable provisions for safety". The higher court might rule in that fashion, but not necessarily so.

I don't think a 'same level' court would have any choice but to comply with the existing precedent - so, if anyone were excited enough to want to get a 'changed ruling', that would presumably have to be attempted on appeal to a higher court.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

When have I ever said that you become responsible for everything that's already there just because you add to it?

When have I ever asserted that you have said that?

It seemed to be what you were suggesting I believe when you wrote this:

I wonder how many times it has to be explained to you that the requirement for making reasonable provision for safety applies to what you do, not to [what-is-already-there + what-you-add] before you understand it?

You cannot use the existence of something which is no longer allowed to be done as a justification for continuing to do it.

I never said you could. My justification in this case is the belief that it still meets the standard of making reasonable provision for safety.

Did you not see any of those? Or do you not understand that when I write "a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety" I am not writing "its requirements"?

You certainly give the impression of feeling that by far the majority of its requirements are legally binding because of your interpretation of "reasonable provision for safety."

A while ago you claimed that in your opinion it would be illegal to install a new socket or switch without sleeving on the earth wire. Perhaps you'd care to tell us all how you think that's a requirement which is
"intimately related to personal safety."

But I do confess to being confused by your approach to BS7671 sometimes. In the thread about smoke detectors you'll happily say that table 52.3 relating to minimum cable sizes for "lighting" vs. "power" circuits is nonsense, so just ignore it (with which sentiment I agree, by the way). You'll explain how in your opinion it's wrong to extend an installation with red/black wiring using new brown/blue if you have red/black available for the addition, even though BS7671 quite clearly states that brown/blue are now the only acceptable colors and that using the new brown/blue would result in an addition compliant with BS7671. Then you turn around and try to tell us you think it would be illegal to omit a piece of earth sleeving because BS7671 requires it.

Does anyone else find this rather divided, selective approach to compliance with BS7671 B-A-S has rather odd?

 

[JohnW2]

But I do confess to being confused by your approach to BS7671 sometimes. Does anyone else find this rather divided, selective approach to compliance with BS7671 B-A-S has rather odd?

Yes. The approach seems to vary according to what suits him - all based on his opinions as regards interpretation of BS7671 and/or the law.

Kind RegARDS, jOHN