Can I do this as a DIYer???

[Paul_C]

Sorry, but it didn't, it stipulated ".....which may reasonably be expected to supply portable....."

Reasonable and likely are two different things.

O.K., I was paraphrasing. But "may reasonably be expected to" is certainly implying "likely to" rather than "capable of."

If there is either a weatherproof socket on the outside of the house, or a socket immediately inside the door, could it reasonably be expected that somebody would ignore those and instead run an extension lead through to some other room?

Maybe that is an example of an exception that proves the rule, what if there wasn't an outdoor socket? I would say on that there a lot of houses with gardens that don't have outdoor sockets.

That's where I'd say you could then reasonably expect that a socket adjacent or close to the door will be used. The problem with this rule in the 16th edition was that it was rather vague and open to individual interpretation.

The outdoor socket in your example, would require RCD protection anyway.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that every other socket inside the house (on the ground floor) needs it.

Anyway, that's rather academic to the original query, since we now know that the upstairs sockets are RCD protected so the alterations would comply with the new 17th edition anyway.

OOI, do you know if the Building Regulations have been amended to refer to the 17th Edition?

AFAIK, the latest iteration of the SI refers specifically to BS 7671:2001, for example when defining the term "special location".

So far as I'm aware the actual Building Regulations don't refer to BS7671 at all, 2001 or 2008. There is reference to BS7671 in the "Approved Document," but even that acknowledges that there is no compulsion to follow BS7671, specifically citing other EU/EEA standards which would be taken as complying with the Building Regs. if followed.

But if I wanted to wire my house to American or Australian standards, there's nothing in the Building Regs. to stop me.

 

[rebuke]

I believe the 16th edition referal is only for the definition of special locations (zones etc) to determine what is/isn't notifiable, so the only conflict is that while the 17th edition might declare something in a bathroom to be out of zones, and not notifiable, under the 16th it may be in zones, so is notifiable - the work should still be done to the latest edition...

 

[EddieM]

is it ok to replace the AA batteries in my torch? or should I inform LABC?

 

[Goldberg]

OOI, do you know if the Building Regulations have been amended to refer to the 17th Edition?

AFAIK, the latest iteration of the SI refers specifically to BS 7671:2001, for example when defining the term "special location".

So far as I'm aware the actual Building Regulations don't refer to BS7671 at all, 2001 or 2008.

Please see SI 2004:3210, Regulation 12(5), paragraph 4.

There is reference to BS7671 in the "Approved Document," but even that acknowledges that there is no compulsion to follow BS7671, specifically citing other EU/EEA standards which would be taken as complying with the Building Regs. if followed.

I acknowledge the absence of any legal compulsion to follow the entirety of BS 7671 (and as for "Confused Document P", let's not go there); I was merely soliciting opinions about how a punter would resolve the apparent conflict that arises from the explicit reference and the general "reasonable provision" requirement.

But if I wanted to wire my house to American or Australian standards, there's nothing in the Building Regs. to stop me.

True, except for a "special location" - BS 7671:2001 currently has precedence in the event of any conflict of definitions of "relevant zones", and the definitions in BS 7671:2001 therefore have legal relevance, despite the BS not being a statutory document. Unless a later amendement to the BRs changes "2001" to "2008", then surely the 17th Edition has no equivalent relevance.

 

[Goldberg]

is it ok to replace the AA batteries in my torch? or should I inform LABC?

MAPP, or Oxy-Acetylene?

 

[Goldberg]

...the work should still be done to the latest edition...

I agree, because intuitively that feels correct. But it is still "reasonable" to work to the 16th?

What say you to the claim that some 17th installations will be less safe than the equivalent 16th installation, where the justification for such a claim is the real-life failure rate of RCDs and the general lack of regular test-button-pressing?

 

[LiamPope]

is it ok to replace the AA batteries in my torch? or should I inform LABC?

If you want to do it in a kitchen or special location, then yes, you must notify your LABC.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

AFAIK, the latest iteration of the SI refers specifically to BS 7671:2001, for example when defining the term "special location".

That's not an example, it's the only place it refers to it, and using a definition of a location from the 16th does not mean that the 16th is what the law requires you to follow. It's a bit like giving somebody an OS grid reference for a meeting place - by doing that you're not mandating that they use OS maps to navigate there.

If it hasn't [been so amended], then how does a punter resolve the conflict in terms of lawfulness? Is it correct to work to the 16th Edition, i.e. by the letter of the law, or (electrically) safer to work to the 17th Edition, i.e. by the spirit of the law?

There is no conflict. How can there be when the law imposes no requirement to work to any version of BS 7671? However you choose to comply with P1, be it BS 7671, an equivalent standard from a member of the EEA, or no particular standard at all, it is only the criteria for notification which are based on BS 7671:2001.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Hi Paul C,

The law is an ass.
There is conflict between our laws and non-statutory regulation, that leaves us mere mortals to make judgement calls based on experience and 'knowledge' of directives.

When i asked if you were sure?
That was in response to your suggestion that there was 'no general guidance' for rcd protection in the 16th or prior.
I know this to be incorrect.
The ensuing conversation to that is now a matter of interpretation of reg 471-06-01 from the 16th, but nevertheless the reg is there.
Your points are valid interpretations of this reg, it just so happens that i interpret this differently. Maybe as both of us are competent persons, both of our interpretantions would fulfill the criteria of this reg? Maybe there is more than one way to skin a cat.

As a design arguement, if you provided an outdoor socket, which required an RCD, then you could omit rcd for other sockets. However, practically speaking, if you were to provide above mentioned outdoor socket,
chances are, it would be from the existing downstair ring. If this were the case, might it be a prudent design choice to put the rcd 'front end' therefore give protection to all sockets on that circuit?

I agree that this is all now academic, but i was indulging this notion. I only mentioned it to bring it to mind the current requirements for RCD's to give the OP something to consider IF upstairs were not RCD'd.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

also, i have seen someone plug an extension in the kitchen, to allow hoovering all round the downstairs and up the stairs without unplugging/plugging.
Following the hoovering, the extension was simply dragged through dining room, past 4 sockets, out to the back garden and the lawnmovwer plugged in.

You now have a situation where the mower in the back garden was being fed from socket at the front So from my own personal experience, it was then a foreseeable act, which made it reasonable to expect.

Its ok people saying stuff to the effect
- householder is a numpty
- shouldn't be allow.
- why did they do that, how lazy.

all of the above may be true, but we are not in a position to be judgemental about his.

 

[EddieM]

is it ok to replace the AA batteries in my torch? or should I inform LABC?

If you want to do it in a kitchen or special location, then yes, you must notify your LABC.

oh fook they want £100 !!

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

is it ok to replace the AA batteries in my torch? or should I inform LABC?

If you want to do it in a kitchen or special location, then yes, you must notify your LABC.

oh fook they want £100 !!

im a self certifier, ill do the job for £75

 

[Goldberg]

AFAIK, the latest iteration of the SI refers specifically to BS 7671:2001, for example when defining the term "special location".

That's not an example, it's the only place it refers to it

If you say so.

using a definition of a location from the 16th does not mean that the 16th is what the law requires you to follow.

I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply, that it did/does.

It's a bit like giving somebody an OS grid reference for a meeting place - by doing that you're not mandating that they use OS maps to navigate there.

If you say so.

If it hasn't [been so amended], then how does a punter resolve the conflict in terms of lawfulness? Is it correct to work to the 16th Edition, i.e. by the letter of the law, or (electrically) safer to work to the 17th Edition, i.e. by the spirit of the law?

There is no conflict. How can there be when the law imposes no requirement to work to any version of BS 7671? However you choose to comply with P1, be it BS 7671, an equivalent standard from a member of the EEA, or no particular standard at all, it is only the criteria for notification which are based on BS 7671:2001.

I think you've missed my point, so I apologise if I was unclear, but I'm grateful for the time you've taken to give your opinion on this.

I'm also interested to hear opinions from other forum members.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I have contacted my Local building controls officer who just so happens to be an electrician, with the ops scenario.
See what reply I get, might consider sending some of the tasty stuff within this thread if you guys had no objections, that is? and he was willing to comment!

 

[Goldberg]

I have contacted my Local building controls officer who just so happens to be an electrician, with the ops scenario.
See what reply I get, might consider sending some of the tasty stuff within this thread if you guys had no objections, that is? and he was willing to comment!

The topic is already in the public domain, so why not just send him the URL?

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=187075