How about it - It no longer exists end of story.
Just because it's been superseded doesn't mean that it never existed or that work done now cannot comply with the requirements of it. Besides, look at the
current official guidance document on how to comply with the requirements of Part P of the building regulations:
0.2 A way of satisfying the fundamental principles would be to follow:
(a) the technical rules described in the body of BS7671:2001 as amended {...}
Yes, the current Approved Document dates from 2006, but it is still supposed to be a representation of the official position at this time in 2011. So according to the government's own guidance notes, installing those cables without RCD protection still meets the requirement of making "reasonable provision for safety."
Just because the latest version of BS7671 says to provide RCD protection in certain circumstances does not mean that all those installations done before that time are in any way unsafe.
No one is saying that
Some people appear to be.
and BS7671 (2008) quite clearly states that fact.
In which case even if BS7671:2008 is taken as being the "must follow" guide for what's acceptable or not, there can be no question that non-RCD cables are still to be considered reasonably safe.
ban-all-sheds said:
The past is the past.
Superseded is superseded.
It's not considered perfectly acceptable any more.
So all those periodic inspections putting down non-RCD-protected cables as code 4 are completely wrong then?
The PIR is carried out against the current edition of BS7671. If, under that current version, the lack of RCD protection on the cables warrants no more than a "doesn't comply, but is not unsafe" observation, then the installation must be reasonably safe. It it wasn't reasonably safe, then it would have to warrant code 2 at the very least. I know some people seem to have been putting down crazy PIR codes for little things in recent years, but I've yet to see anyone try to claim this as anything more than a code 4.
Creating a new instance of that is not considered safe enough now.
By whom? Yes, BS7671 does not allow it now, but as noted already, equally it doesn't not declare existing installations to be in any way unsafe. Whether that new instance of a non-RCD-protected cable was created four years ago or yesterday in no way affects the level of safety which it provides today. If you are comparing it with some current accepted standard of safety, either it meets that standard or it doesn't. When it was installed is immaterial.
Work done NOW should comply with the standards of NOW.
As far as BS7671 is concerned, the legislation says otherwise.
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
Especially when the official guidance notes explicitly reference two dozen other standards as being considered acceptable, even if many of the basic requirements in them are similar.
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).
Indeed. It is for the authority to prove that "reasonable provision" has not been made if it so believes. In the case at hand, we have a situation for an installation which little over three years ago was fully compliant with the then-current version of BS7671. It was considered quite acceptable and safe by just about everybody in the British electrical industry (including some of those who are now arguing that it's not acceptable). We've had those same people for the last three years carrying out inspections and noting the lack of RCD protection as nothing more than a code 4, supported by all the major organizations in the British industry. We have a still-current officially issued guide to complying with the building regulations which states that compliance with that older version of BS7671 is a way of demonstrating compliance with Part P.
With all of that, is there really any chance whatsoever that a local authority could actually prove its case in court?
JohnW2 said:
However, IMO the current legislation is an almost unprecdented affront to personal freedom. We live in a society in which it is lawful to smoke, drink oneself silly, climb mountains, jump out of aircraft or engage in any number of other highly hazardous activities - and even (for decades now) to deliberate kill oneself. If sane informed adults wish to take such risks/decisons, I believe that's entirely up to them - and I believe the same should be true of seatbelt use (failure to use them directly affecting only the individual concerned).
Succinctly put. One of my objections to the legislation is also on the grounds that seat belts clearly aren't beneficial in all cases, and many people have been maimed or killed by belts. The government has absolutely no right to force the use of a "safety device" on people when that device might actually prove harmful in some situations.
But even if that were not the case, it's still not the government's business to use the might of the state to try and force an individual to do something which is, supposedly, merely for his own benefit. Accept that argument for seat belts, and you accept it as a precedent for the state to start mandating almost anything you can think of which it decrees to be "for your own good." The existing motorcycle crash helmet law passed in 1973 was cited as precedent for the belt law when this issue was raised. In places like Australia and New Zealand, those laws have in turn been cited more recently as precedent for making the wearing of bicycle helmets compulsory. What next - Compulsory safety wear just to walk down the street?
Back to the topic...
LABCs are not obliged to prescribe methods of complying with P1. The person carrying out electrical installation is obliged to comply with it, therefore he has to believe that he has chosen to use methods which lead to compliance.
And it is for the LABC to demonstrate that he has not if it believes that to be the case.
Indeed, but in this country contravening BS 7671 is not a good basis for compliance with P1.
Again, the officially issued guidance clearly states otherwise.
Or you could act reasonably.
Such as by doing something which a mere three years ago was the generally accepted standard, and which compared with the current (non-statutory) standard is still considered to be perfectly safe and not in need of "improvement."
I wonder why 7671 is not statutory; it would be very easy to so make it. {.....}
It's as if, for some reason, the powers that be want us to follow the regulations when working on electrical installations but are covering themselves because they know they are not enforceable - but why?
JohnW2 said:
It could be as simply as legal bureaucracy not allowing a British Standard being enshrined in legislation - perhaps for as simple a reason as it having been written by an independent body, rather than by the legislature. {.....}
I have a sneeky suspicion that if it were still only 'The Wiring Regs', it could well be Statutory by now ... but that's just wild speculation.
I have a suspicion that it's more to do with being entangled in the EU. Everything which is done legislatively today is forced to take other European standards, EU directives, and so on into account, or consider the possibility that anything which refers explicitly to a British Standard could be challenged by the European courts and struck down as being "against EU law." Does anyone really believe that the references to other EU/EEA standards in the Approved Document are there for any other reason than this country's membership of the EU?
My only thought on this is that if the OP ran the cables as suggested, (without RCD protection), and thereby not complying with BS7671.2008, how can the work be certified, (EIC or Minor), if you are signing to say that it complies??
So those who say 'just do it anyway' - what?? No Certs???
DIY work in one's own house, extending an existing circuit by adding lights and switches so not notifiable. How many average householders would issue a certificate for such work?
I'm not saying that use of a seatbelt has never done any harm, but I do think you weaken the impact of your argument by mentioning it.
