Advice on moving double socket to allow for radiator

[pete01]

In how many places do the regulations say "you must do XYZ, or something different if you think it make sense"?

But if you want to look at it in terms of "common sense", try this:

So we interpreted things differently, what's your point?

Someone could remove a socket and plaster over that.

 

[securespark]

That is just what I was thinking before I turned the page.

 

[morqthana]

So we interpreted things differently, what's your point?

The point is I'm not "interpreting".

I'm reading what's actually written.

Someone could remove a socket and plaster over that.

They could. Or they could do it wrong from the start. Wrong cable size. Wrong route. Wrong MCB. No cpc. No RCD. Reverse polarity. Exposed live parts.

There's no limit to what someone could do wrong, but we don't use that fact to justify not having regulations.

 

[SUNRAY]

One of those on the surface of the wall would be fine.

One of those sunk into the wall would not be on the surface of the wall.

Pathetic.

 

[securespark]

By the way, the regs make a distinction between terminating and joining cables.

What point (no pun intended) are you making here?

Has this Michael at the IET tech helpline been given the authority to declare that something is compliant when it does not comply with the regulations as written?

Are you an electrician? I'm guessing not, because if you were, you would at some point in your career had to call on the services of the IEE/ IET helpline.

The people you speak to represent the organisation. They know the regulations inside out. There's no, "Hang on, I'll find out for you...", or "I'm not sure, let me get back to you..."

There's instant confirmation of what you need to know. Of course he has authority. Of course it complies. Do you think he'd be giving sparks the wrong advice and exposing them to potential claims or issues arising out of non-compliant installations?

I tell you what, if it helps, why don't YOU ring and ask to speak to Michael at the helpline and ask him to explain it?

 

[morqthana]

Pathetic.

No - just standard English, using agreed dictionary definitions.

 

[flameport]

If people must argue over BS7671 regulations, at least argue over what is in the current edition.

522.6.202 has significantly changed in Amendment 4.

 

[morqthana]

What point (no pun intended) are you making here?

That if

point (in wiring).
A termination of the fixed wiring intended for the connection of current-using equipment.

then a joint may not count as a termination.

The people you speak to represent the organisation. They know the regulations inside out. There's no, "Hang on, I'll find out for you...", or "I'm not sure, let me get back to you..."

Do they though? Or are they like you, who think that because they think they know what the reason for having any particular regulation is then something which fulfils that must ipso facto comply, even when it clearly does not comply with the way the regulation was worded.

There's instant confirmation of what you need to know. Of course he has authority.

I'm talking about real, formal, legal authority. the Wiring Regulations are a British Standard. Does he have the authority to declare that a written standard may be ignored and an arrangement which does not comply with the actual, formal, written standard does in fact comply with it?

Of course it complies.

Of course it does not. Read the actual written regulation. Read the words which are there and only the words which are there. Do not assume that in the minds of the authors there were intentions which they did not bother to actually write into the regulation. Do not invent different meanings for English words which have not been given specific definitions in the standard. Do not assume that because you think you have divined a raison d'etre for a regulation then anything which implements that must be compliant.

It's an official national standard.

Read the actual written words.

Do you think he'd be giving sparks the wrong advice and exposing them to potential claims or issues arising out of non-compliant installations?

Yes, I do, if his mind works like yours, and that of all those who think that if something has the same result it complies, even though it clearly does not when the wording, and only the wording, is examined.

 

[denso13]

If people must argue over BS7671 regulations, at least argue over what is in the current edition.

522.6.202 has significantly changed in Amendment 4.

View attachment 423029

That seems to be that then. Cable from any circuit can be in any safe zone and "surface" now not mentioned.

 

[securespark]

even though it clearly does not when the wording, and only the wording, is examined.

Have you got the wording of the Amd 4 reg?

 

[morqthana]

If people must argue over BS7671 regulations, at least argue over what is in the current edition.

522.6.202 has significantly changed in Amendment 4.

Yes, it would have been useful.

 

[morqthana]

Have you got the wording of the Amd 4 reg?

I hadn't.

If you had, what did you hope to achieve by perpetuating an argument predicated on

?

 

[pete01]

I hadn't.

If you had, what did you hope to achieve by perpetuating an argument predicated on

View attachment 423182

?

Well it is connected behind it, that'll do

 

[securespark]

I hadn't.

If you had, what did you hope to achieve by perpetuating an argument predicated on

View attachment 423182

?

Don't be paranoid, Henry.

I didn't.

I was going off the pre Amd 4 def. too.

There has been a lot of discussion around that reg and unknown to me, it has been updated to avoid confusion.

The opinion expressed to me by another IET helpline soul subsequently was that the spirit of the regulation has not changed, only the wording.

 

[morqthana]

Occam's Razor.

If the wording did not match the spirit for decades then what people thought was the spirit was not.