Electrics setup all strange after electrician has been out. Riddle inside (stiff drink needed)...

[stillp]

there are the Wiring Regulations, otherwise known as BS7671,

Forgive the pedantry, but actually there is BS7671 "Requirements for electrical installations", otherwise known as "IEE Wiring Regulations".

That should be IET

Not according to my copy.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[securespark]

The document is a British Standard, BS7671:2008, subtitled Requirements for Electrical Installations, IET Wiring Regulations Seventeenth Edition, so PBC is correct, no?

 

[stillp]

Thanks BAS, I don't have the new yellow version incorporating the Amendment.

 

[PBC_1966]

Full version would read along the lines of 'Any additions to or modifications of your household wiring whether notifiable or not must comply with current building regulations - as things stand right now to comply with building regs any additions/modifications must comply with BS7671 Amendment 2'.

Obviously there are certain provisions within BS7671 which so relate to basic safety that by almost anybody's interpretation of what "reasonable provision for safety" means they would need to be followed to be in compliance with the Building Regulations. But it's not true to say that in order to comply with the Building Regs. you must comply with BS7671 in full. The guidance notes for Part P even state as much.

 

[scousespark]

Thanks BAS, I don't have the new yellow version incorporating the Amendment.

FYI Amendment 1 was called IEE Wiring Regulations, printed by the IET.

 

[securespark]

They've been putting IET on the regs and OSG for a few years now.

My 17th from 2008 has IET on the cover.

 

[PBC_1966]

Aren't we in danger of getting bogged down in semantics a little here? Whatever the current title or sub-title on the cover now or before, "Wiring Regs." has been used as a general term for decades to refer to the set of rules issued by the IEE, IET, BSI, whoever, and I'm sure that's what Risteard meant when he said:

I presume you meant Wiring Regulations as opposed to the Building Regulations.

Wiring Regulations = Commonly known as the IEE Wiring Regs., and BS7671 for the last couple of decades. Widely used as the standard in the U.K., but there is not and never has been any legal obligation to comply.

Building Regulations = Statutory legislation, compliance with which is legally mandatory, although the stipulated requirements are expressed in somewhat vague terms.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Clueless - this is how it is.

It is true that there is no explicit legal requirement to comply with the Wiring Regulations, but then nobody has claimed that there is. But there is an explicit legal requirement to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

PBC argues that because the law does not require compliance with the Wiring Regulations there is therefore no requirement to apply RCD protection to newly installed sockets, or concealed cables. In that I believe he is grievously wrong. Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, 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.

So if you act unreasonably in refusing to implement a vital safety feature, you cannot be said to have been reasonable in your provision for safety, and therefore you cannot be said to have complied with the law. PBC has tried, and no doubt will try again, to dismiss this on the grounds that I cannot cite any legal precedent to support it. Funny how he doesn't seem to think that the same burden of proof should apply to him.

He also has tried, and no doubt will also try again, the argument that because it didn't used to be required, and it was considered safe enough to do without then, and because existing instances of non-RCD sockets and concealed cables are not required to be updated, that it must therefore be reasonable to continue to implement outdated practices. This really is nothing short of a complete refusal to understand or accept that things change, and that what was considered OK to be done yesterday is no longer considered to be done today. It is a common scenario - take cars, for example, and safety features, or emissions. Often requirements change, but people are allowed to carry on driving cars which pre-date the changes. One might well ask "Is this car safe enough to drive?", and get the answer "Yes", but about the same car, and in relation to the same safety aspect, the answer to the question "Is this car safe enough to be made today?" can be "No".

So it is with RCD protection for sockets and concealed cables. Yes, it used to be OK to not have it. Yes, you are allowed to carry on not having it if that's how your installation is. No, you are not allowed to install new stuff without it.

It's been a requirement of the Wiring Regulations for years. There are similar requirements in many other countries, and have been for years. To simply decide to not bother because there is no explicit law forcing you to do it is not reasonable.

And if it's not reasonable, it is not lawful.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Obviously there are certain provisions within BS7671 which so relate to basic safety that by almost anybody's interpretation of what "reasonable provision for safety" means they would need to be followed to be in compliance with the Building Regulations.

One of them being RCD protection for sockets.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not wrong. It is a requirement of the Wiring Regulations which is a separate document to the Building Regulations.

It is indeed a requirement of the WR not the BR, but you are indeed wrong.

With something as important as RCD protection is it not reasonable to not install it.

Therefore not installing it is not making reasonable provision for safety.

 

[securespark]

Right...I'm back with my popcorn...

 

[PBC_1966]

It's been a requirement of the Wiring Regulations for years.

While what B-A-S wrote is technically correct since it's been more than one year, it's written in a way which comes across as suggesting that it's been there and regarded as an essential safety requirement for a long time. But as I pointed out already, the BS7671 requirement for RCD protection on all sockets has been there since 2008 (and even then, as I also noted already, with exceptions). Not exactly going back into the dark ages of electrical safety, is it?

He also notes I cannot cite a legal precedent which says that compliance with that particular regulation of BS7671 is not necessary to be deemed "reasonable provision for safety." Again, that's true, because so far as I'm aware, there has never been a case surrounding what "reasonable provision for safety" actually means, other than a handful of cases in which the work was so obviously dangerous that nobody with any electrical knowledge could try to claim otherwise. He has been asked,several times by several of us, to cite any legal precedent which has held than not complying with the RCD rule in the current edition of BS7671 is to be considered failure to comply with the "reasonable provision for safety" requirement of the Building Regulations. He has failed to do so, but seems to think that constantly restating his opinion is "proof" that he is right.

What I have cited, however, is the guidance from the same committee responsible for the rules in BS7671 which says that even though they stipulate RCD protection for new work in order to claim compliance with the current standard, they don't regard sockets without RCD protection as being in any way unsafe.

To save time back and forth (and to avoid securespark having to get a bigger bag of popcorn!), I know that B-A-S will soon be back to tell you that "Things change" and that what is considered "safe enough" to remain is not considered safe enough to continue to be allowed to be installed, etc. But he has trouble differentiating between a standard which seeks only to reach a level of safety which might be considered the minimum necessary for "reasonable safety" and one which seeks to achieve a higher level of safety by going beyond that. BS7671 contains many rules which certainly are in no way essential for something to be considered reasonably safe. The BS7671 committee itself clearly recognizes this difference, otherwise for inspections there would not be any code which says, in effect, that they recommend improvement to the current standard, but that there's no danger present.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's been a requirement of the Wiring Regulations for years.

While what B-A-S wrote is technically correct since it's been more than one year, it's written in a way which comes across as suggesting that it's been there and regarded as an essential safety requirement for a long time. But as I pointed out already, the BS7671 requirement for RCD protection on all sockets has been there since 2008 (and even then, as I also noted already, with exceptions). Not exactly going back into the dark ages of electrical safety, is it?

7 years.

It's been a requirement for 7 years and still you think it is reasonable to just not bother to do it.

He also notes I cannot cite a legal precedent which says that compliance with that particular regulation of BS7671 is not necessary to be deemed "reasonable provision for safety." Again, that's true, because so far as I'm aware, there has never been a case surrounding what "reasonable provision for safety" actually means, other than a handful of cases in which the work was so obviously dangerous that nobody with any electrical knowledge could try to claim otherwise. He has been asked,several times by several of us, to cite any legal precedent which has held than not complying with the RCD rule in the current edition of BS7671 is to be considered failure to comply with the "reasonable provision for safety" requirement of the Building Regulations. He has failed to do so, but seems to think that constantly restating his opinion is "proof" that he is right.

You have failed to cite any legal precedent which has held that not complying with the RCD rule in the current edition of BS7671 is considered a reasonable thing to do, but you seem to think that constantly restating your opinion is "proof" that you are right.

What I have cited, however, is the guidance from the same committee responsible for the rules in BS7671 which says that even though they stipulate RCD protection for new work in order to claim compliance with the current standard, they don't regard sockets without RCD protection as being in any way unsafe.

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.

I will stop pointing out how common it is for existing things to be allowed to continue to be used after the date when they are no longer allowed to be made, as clearly this is something you do not want to understand.

To save time back and forth

To save time back and forth, I suggest you stop doing the following:

Encouraging people to adopt the practice of seeking to do the minimum they can possibly get away with rather than doing the best job they can.

Claiming that there is no reason to accept that things change.

Claiming that because something existing does not have to be scrapped that means it can still be made.

Claiming that ignoring a safety requirement which has been in place for several years is a reasonable thing to do.

The BS7671 committee itself clearly recognizes this difference, otherwise for inspections there would not be any code which says, in effect, that they recommend improvement to the current standard, but that there's no danger present.

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.

I will stop pointing out how common it is for existing things to be allowed to continue to be used after the date when they are no longer allowed to be made, as clearly this is something you do not want to understand.

 

[PBC_1966]

Discussing what is or is not reasonable with you is pointless, given your ridiculous claim that it's illegal to do something as trivial as omit a piece of earth sleeving, and given that you conveniently try to use BS7671 as a definition of what constitutes "reasonable provision for safety" when it matches your opinion but happily tell people to ignore it when that suits your opinion, and also that you change your interpretation of "reasonable provision for safety" from relative to absolute and back again to suit your particular argument.

So let's not get everybody rushing out to buy more popcorn......