Europlug sockets

[niv2]

What is it you actually want to achieve?

Nothing...I just wanted to know if it was permissible and this has been answered by ericmark

 

[ericmark]

Many of the places I have worked have imported German machines which have the German Schuko sockets installed to allow Lap Tops to be used to program the PLC.
It was considered since to use these one had to have the access door open then it would only ever be used by SKILLED OR INSTRUCTED persons so regulation 418 became valid.
However when it was suggested we had a Schuko socket in the workshop so we could use the same lead this was not allowed. It was pointed out we could use adaptor plugs

and so there was no reason why we needed to break the rules.
It does seem odd that using adaptors is OK yet to use the sockets is not. One would have thought that being members of the EU we would have to allow other member states equipment.
However having seen some of the other German ideas I am glad we don't. They use conduit without bends and fit plastic end caps and free air from one length to the next with no earth bonding between each length. They were quite upset when it was pointed out they could not do it here.

I did see a set of houses wired with split phase 110v supply in Suffolk originally for US military there must have been some arrangement for that but that is the only one.

 

[Paul_C]

I know of one person who persuaded his BCO to accept German regulations as an alternative, so that he could have a socket in the bathroom.

In general, you would have to have the gift of the gab to get this agreement though.

Why should you have to? There is nothing in the Building Regs. which says you must follow BS7671, nor any other specific standard. However it seems that building inspectors seem to like to use the Approved Documents as their absolute guide, despite the fact that they are not law, and the guide for Part P clearly states that following the standard of another EU/EEA country would be one method of showing compliance.

In theory it could be that certain european standards may allowed if Building Controls consider them to be relevant.
So its a no and yes from me.

Whether the LABC considers them relevant is really beside the point, surely? There is nothing in law which prevents you from following them, so there is nothing for LABC to "allow." They have no say in the matter, beyond "reasonable provision" for electrical safety.

However having seen some of the other German ideas I am glad we don't. They use conduit without bends and fit plastic end caps and free air from one length to the next with no earth bonding between each length. They were quite upset when it was pointed out they could not do it here.

You mean just run open single conductors between isolated sections of conduit?

I did see a set of houses wired with split phase 110v supply in Suffolk originally for US military there must have been some arrangement for that but that is the only one.

What special arrangement would be needed? If they were wired pre-Part P there was nothing to govern the electrical installation, and if installed since 2005 they would meet the "reasonable provision" requirement anyway, assuming proper installation methods and materials were used. (Assuming they weren't covered by some blanket military-base exemption anyway.)

With the amount of 120V equipment I have around the house with individual transformers, if I were to refurbish I'd probably install a big transformer and do a similar system in my own home.

 

[BS3036]

Why should you have to? There is nothing in the Building Regs. which says you must follow BS7671, nor any other specific standard. However it seems that building inspectors seem to like to use the Approved Documents as their absolute guide, despite the fact that they are not law, and the guide for Part P clearly states that following the standard of another EU/EEA country would be one method of showing compliance.

Absolutely. However, what you do have to have is the work signed off by the BCO. If they decide to be awkward, then you have to choose between doing what they request or taking them to court (or whatever the procedure might be). Most people will settle for a quiet life, unfortunately.

The law is only there for the rich.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And there is the slight issue of being able to convince the court that it was reasonable for you to install to a different standard.

It is not illegal to do so per se, but what you do has to be reasonable. If it wasn't reasonable for you to wire a domestic property to an unfamiliar standard, then you did not make reasonable provision for safety.

 

[Paul_C]

Absolutely. However, what you do have to have is the work signed off by the BCO. If they decide to be awkward, then you have to choose between doing what they request or taking them to court (or whatever the procedure might be). Most people will settle for a quiet life, unfortunately.

The problem I have with simply giving in to the demands of some petty local dictator is that it only encourages them to overstep their authority even more. Local authorities already seem to think they can make up their own rules as they go along.

But, as you say, much depends upon how willing you are to kick up a fuss - Or how rich. Maybe parking yourself at their office and demanding - very vocally, and preferably with a member of the press nearby - that they abide by the law themselves is the way to go if you want to get attention?

Or if you have no need for their piece of paper, there's no need to do anything.

 

[Paul_C]

And there is the slight issue of being able to convince the court that it was reasonable for you to install to a different standard.

As noted elsewhere recently, the Building Regs. Part P demand that you make "reasonable provision" for safety. The government's own guidance notes state that following one of those other standards would demonstrate compliance with Part P.

So whatever opinion you might have about BS7671 being the best standard in the world and that it's not reasonable to adopt any other standard, the government clearly disagrees.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you try once more to claim that in a situation where A and B are both safe but A is safer than B, it is reasonable to choose the less safe option B over A when A has no drawbacks then you will once more make yourself look like a perverse idiot.

 

[Paul_C]

You seem to be the one trying to pervert what is written into something quite different.

Let's try a step-by-step approach:

1. Do you agree that the legal requirement to satisfy the Building Regs. Part P is to make "reasonable provision" for safety?

2. Do you agree that Part P itself says nothing about having to follow BS7671, or indeed any other specific standard?

3. Do you agree that while Approved Documents are not law in themselves, both central government and the local authorities take it that if you comply with the guidelines in those Approved Documents then you have satisfied the legal requirements of the Buiding Regs?

4. Do you agree that the Approved Document for Part P indicates that compliance with BS7671 would be one method of showing compliance with the Building Regs?

5. Do you agree that the Approved Document for Part P also indicates that following an "equivalent standard approved by a member of the EEA" would be another way of complying with the Building Regs?

 

[plugwash]

Thanks.....I though that the latest IEE allowed the installtion of a socket in a bathroom with certain provisos??

This was before the 17th edition was introduced

 

[ericmark]

The bathroom regulations now treat all rooms with bath or shower the same. On old 16th Edition when a shower was fitted in a bedroom you were allowed sockets but not in a bathroom. The 17th Edition has same rules for both rooms in that 3 meters must exist between shower and socket. In real terms there is no change as bathrooms are not big enough to allow sockets to be fitted. However it does mean if you fit a shower into another room. i.e. Utility then same rules apply.

Problem is when is a shower not a shower! When shower units are used to supply hot water to a wash basin then it not really a shower. The spray units are often fitted to a kitchen sink. Also they are used in hair dressers to wash hair but lack of shower tray and drain means they are allowed. However you can find areas where there are drains in the floor for cleaning and at what point one classes it as a shower is not defined.

To me if anyone is likely to be naked in the area then it's a shower. If people are unlikely to undress i.e. plain window without curtains then it's a wash down unit.

In university we had sockets right next to the bath. However one would not want to immerse ones self into the etching bath and there was obvious no problem. Baths are used for all sorts from curing concrete to developing films and we must assume only those intended for washing bodies are being referred to in the regulations.

Not sure how to class a sheep dip. Often power for shears in same area.

It goes on and on and at the end of the day common sense is required. So for a hotel which is regularly used by continental visitors it may be reasonable to include some German type sockets. In the same way as holiday caravan in south of France may have British sockets for British visitors.

And BAS has hit nail on the head with word "reasonable" and unless one can show why the inferior German sockets are used then the courts may well decide it was not "reasonable" and personally I would prefer not to place myself in a position were courts have to decide. So would follow as close as "reasonable" the recommendations of BS7671:2008.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You seem to be the one trying to pervert what is written into something quite different.

Let's try a step-by-step approach:

Do you really think that a step-by-step approach is going to do anything than become a step-by-step exposition of the idiocy of your position?

If it is not reasonable to work to something other than BS 7671 then you have not made reasonable provision for safety etc.

It may in some circumstances be reasonable to work to VDE 100, for example the case where that guy wanted a German socket in his bathroom, but if you are doing it on a whim then your basis for doing it is not reasonable.

 

[Paul_C]

Do you really think that a step-by-step approach is going to do anything than become a step-by-step exposition of the idiocy of your position?

No, I think that if you answer those questions it will show how your position is completely untenable, so I won't expect you to answer them, because you seem to be fixated on some bizarre interpretation of "reasonable provision" which simply makes no sense against the facts.

If it is not reasonable to work to something other than BS 7671 then you have not made reasonable provision for safety etc.

Now you're adding qualifiers: If it is not reasonable to work to something other than BS7671?

Where is there anything which says, or even implies, that it is unreasonable to work to a standard other than BS7671? Part P itself does not mention any standard. The guidance notes in the Approved Document clearly state that "in the view of the Secretary of State" following standards other than BS7671 will result in compliance with the Building Regs.

Part P says that you must make reasonable provision for safety. If following a standard other than BS7671 will mean compliance with Part P, as stated in the guidelines, then it follows that such a standard does make reasonable provision for safety in the eyes of the law. If it didn't, then how could it satisfy Part P of the Building Regs?

We're not talking about what you, I, or anybody else consider to be the relative safety merits of BS7671 vs. VDE-100, NF C 15-100, or any other standard (and personally I would not want either Shucko or French sockets in my home). We're talking about whether following any of those standards means compliance with Part P of the Building Regs., and "in the view of the Secretary of State," it does.

It may in some circumstances be reasonable to work to VDE 100, for example the case where that guy wanted a German socket in his bathroom, but if you are doing it on a whim then your basis for doing it is not reasonable.

You seem to be contradicting yourself now. It's not reasonable to adopt another standard over BS7671, except when it is reasonable?

Where is there anything which makes compliance or otherwise with Part P dependent upon one's basis for wanting to adopt one standard over another?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All I can do is to repeat my previous explanations in the forlorn hope, but little realistic expectation, that it will finally dawn on you what the word reasonable means.

If you have a choice of two options and the only difference of note between them is that one is less safe than the other then it is unreasonable to choose the less safe one.

We're not talking about what you, I, or anybody else consider to be the relative safety merits of BS7671 vs. VDE-100, NF C 15-100, or any other standard

On the contrary, we are talking about exactly that. In a domestic environment, i.e one where you KNOW that the installation will not be under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person then it is less safe to do it to a standard which will not match the information readily obtainable by unskilled and uninstructed persons wishing to operate, maintain or alter it.

So if for no reason you do it to such a standard then then you have not acted reasonably.

 

[Paul_C]

In a domestic environment, i.e one where you KNOW that the installation will not be under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person then it is less safe to do it to a standard which will not match the information readily obtainable by unskilled and uninstructed persons wishing to operate, maintain or alter it.

How many unskilled users of domestic installations are familiar with BS7671 then? Besides, are you trying to apply the BS7671 definitions of skilled and instructed? How would they apply if you decide to work to some other standard than BS7671?

So if for no reason you do it to such a standard then then you have not acted reasonably.

Who would be installing to any other standard for no reason? There's bound to be some reason for wanting to adopt that standard: The German guy presumably wanted Shucko sockets to use German appliances he brought with him; I would install NEMA outlets because of the amount of 120V equipment I have, and so on.

But how would anyone else know your reasons? What does it matter? The issue is whether your installation standard meets the requirements of the Building Regs., not whether you could have installed to some other standard, or whether anyone else considers your reason good enough or not.

Please show me any official documentation which says that you must install to BS7671 unless you have some good reason (however that may be defined) to do otherwise.