Horstmann HRT4 ASR-ZW

[JohnW2]

At least it is now consistent.

Yes, that's what I really meant by 'sensible'.

It will, though, take a few weeks to rectify them all.

Indeed so .... including, if I recall correctly, at least one instance in my house (I seem to recall that I changed a non-timer fan to a timer one, it fortunately having been wired with flex) !!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I know some felt you could use green/yellow with multi core for other than earth, but there was a full stop, all the latter entries did was clarify.

I have said many times, if regulations change then no requirement to update, but where it has clarified, then one needs to comply with the clarified text.

I have often wondered what an electrician needs to do when he finds he has not read the regulations correctly. specially when it has been some time.

And I know I have been told do xyz for now, I will send some one tomorrow with right part, not a clue if that actually happened.

Since 2004 paper work has been required for every little job, but before then it was often omitted.

 

[JohnW2]

I know some felt you could use green/yellow with multi core for other than earth, but there was a full stop, all the latter entries did was clarify.

I don't know what you mean about the 'full stop'.

Prior to the latest Amendment, 514.3.2 has always allowed any oversleeving of anything, except that 514.4.2 made the one exception of a G/Y-insulated single-core cable, in which case over-sleeving was not permitted. I see no uncertainty or ambiguity in that.

514.4.2 has now been extended (in Amd 2) to include G/Y-insulated conductors in multi-core cables - so it is now not permissible to over-sleeve any G/Y-insulated conductor- which as EFLI has said, is at least 'consistent'..

Kind Regards, John

 

[CBW]

Can I throw a spanner in the works, so to speak. Do the regs only apply to new, or could it be like water regulations, whereby the disconnection of the wire now deems it to adhere to current regulations? Op has stated they will upgrade it when they can.

 

[JohnW2]

Can I throw a spanner in the works, so to speak. Do the regs only apply to new, or could it be like water regulations, whereby the disconnection of the wire now deems it to adhere to current regulations? Op has stated they will upgrade it when they can.

As it sounds as if you understand, the regs are, in general, 'not retrospective'. In other words if something complied with regs when it was installed, but ceases to be compliant with subsequent regulations, there is never any obligation to 'bring it up to current requirements', theoretically even decades (and many editions of the regs) down the road.

However, the question you're asking is less straightforward, which is often debated here, and about which there are varying opinions - without any official indication of which opinions are 'right and wrong' (i.e.'intended'). In essence, it's a question of how much work one has to do (e.g. on a circuit) before one invokes a requirement to bring the whole circuit (or whatever) up to 'current standards'.

In terms of the specific you mention, I would imagine that not many people would say that disconnecting and then reconnecting a conductor would invoke the need to bring it up to 'current standards'. On the other hand, if one were to, say, extend the cable, then that might well have to be done in compliance with current regs.

I suspect you may see some of those 'varying opinions' voiced here!

Kind Regards, John

 

[CBW]

I suspect you may see some of those 'varying opinions' voiced here!

Absolutely John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

CBW: What are water regulations like - in this respect?


As for having to do something the (non-statuary) regulations now state; when they did not yesterday; do you think there would ever be a case where a householder was forced (by law or any other means) to replace a cable because it is now the wrong colour?

 

[JohnW2]

As for having to do something the (non-statuary) regulations now state; when they did not yesterday; do you think there would ever be a case where a householder was forced (by law or any other means) to replace a cable because it is now the wrong colour?

I got the impression that CBW was not talking about 'mandatory', 'law' or people being 'forced' to do anything but, rather, was asking about the attitude to things that had become non-conformant with (non-mandatory) regulations by virtue of a change in those regulations since they were installed.

There is no argument that to be compliant, 'new work' has to comply with current regs. For example, if one adds an additional socvket to an existing sockets circuit which is not RCD-protected, then I think that everyone would accept that the new socket has to be somehow RCD-protected (although, because of the absence of mention of the applicable Standard in BS7671, there is can be some argument about whether an 'RCD socket' is acceptable).

However, some will go further, and express the view that such an alteration to the circuit invokes a requirement (in the eyes of the regs) for all sockets on the circuit to now be rendered RCD-protected. I am not personally inclined to subscribe to that view.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Agreed.

Just a caution, some folk fall into the trap of thinking that once complied but no longer does is still deemed "safe" because it once complied. Well if you doing a Periodic Test & Inspect (or EICR as we now calls it) you have to state that the installation is deemed Satisfacory or Unsatisfactory compared to our regs as they apply today irrespective of whether they were designed and installed next week, last week or 50 years ago.
One example, main bonding, not that long ago main bonding was not a thing to do, then it became a thing to do, then it became a thing to do with thicker cables.
Does anyone think that if we had three adjacent properties, each with intended similar use, and one had wiring done today, one last year and one a hundred years ago and they all had the same defect, would any defect codes issued on an EICR be different according to what year the installation was completed?

PS, my answer would be NO. They should all be given the same code because of the same defect according to our risk perception of that defect today

 

[CBW]

CBW: What are water regulations like - in this respect?


As for having to do something the (non-statuary) regulations now state; when they did not yesterday; do you think there would ever be a case where a householder was forced (by law or any other means) to replace a cable because it is now the wrong colour?

If you remove a hosepipe that’s connected to a garden tap that’s not been installed correctly - reconnecting it would then be in breach of the regulations - as stated to me by 2 sources at the time - Wras and water undertaker regs department. This may only apply to garden taps though, because a fill valve that’s not been installed correctly, you can’t force them (customers) to upgrade, only advise.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just a caution, some folk fall into the trap of thinking that once complied but no longer does is still deemed "safe" because it once complied.

That must be the case (in the definitions we use). It cannot be otherwise.

The alternative is that it was never safe and all previous EICRs were wrong.

Well if you doing a Periodic Test & Inspect (or EICR as we now calls it) you have to state that the installation is deemed Satisfacory or Unsatisfactory compared to our regs as they apply today irrespective of whether they were designed and installed next week, last week or 50 years ago.

True. Perhaps we should not use the word 'safe' or 'dangerous' but stick to 'satisfactory'.

One example, main bonding, not that long ago main bonding was not a thing to do, then it became a thing to do, then it became a thing to do with thicker cables.

Bonding is not a typical example. The new requirements became necessary not merely because of a new rule but rather the neglect of the DNO to maintain their cables adequately.

Does anyone think that if we had three adjacent properties, each with intended similar use, and one had wiring done today, one last year and one a hundred years ago and they all had the same defect, would any defect codes issued on an EICR be different according to what year the installation was completed?

PS, my answer would be NO. They should all be given the same code because of the same defect according to our risk perception of that defect today

It obviously depends on what that defect is.

If a socket without RCD 'protection' was not code 2 and 'potentially dangerous' before the requirement for RCD 'protection' then how can it be so now?
This, of course, while accepting that electricity itself is 'potentially dangerous' so perhaps it is just the terminology we use that is also unsatisfactory.

 

[JohnW2]

Just a caution, some folk fall into the trap of thinking that once complied but no longer does is still deemed "safe" because it once complied.

If they think like that,they are over-interpreting (mis-reading?) what the introduction to BS7671 always says - not that such things are "deemed safe" but, rather, that they are "not necessarily unsafe". It is therefore really left as a matter of judgement/discretion.

Well if you doing a Periodic Test & Inspect (or EICR as we now calls it) you have to state that the installation is deemed Satisfacory or Unsatisfactory compared to our regs as they apply today irrespective of whether they were designed and installed next week, last week or 50 years ago.

True. As far as EICRs are concerned, that has been somewhat complicated/confused by the loss of the C4 code. As things now stand, if one mentions a non-compliance (with current regs), the least one can do is 'recommend improvement' (C3) - there is no longer a way of mentioning something which is not compliant with current regs but which one does not consider to be a significant issue (I suppose one is free to not mention it at all).

Does anyone think that if we had three adjacent properties, each with intended similar use, and one had wiring done today, one last year and one a hundred years ago and they all had the same defect, would any defect codes issued on an EICR be different according to what year the installation was completed? ... PS, my answer would be NO. They should all be given the same code because of the same defect according to our risk perception of that defect today

I would imagine that virtually everyone would agree with you, now. However, as above, in the past some things which today would have to be coded as C3 (or not mentioned/coded at all) would have been coded as C4.

However, as you say, it's all to do with "our risk perception of that defect today". Not only does that (society's view) change over time, but the decision as to whether a defect is 'potentially dangerous' is obviously a pretty vague criterion which is reliant on the judgement/discretion of each individual inspector.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If a socket without RCD 'protection' was not code 2 and 'potentially dangerous' before the requirement for RCD 'protection' then how can it be so now?

We've been through this many times. The actual level of risk obviously cannot change over time - what what can, and does, change over time (in most walks of life) is "our" (society's) views about what is an "acceptable degree of risk". As I've just written, not only does that societal view (hence regulations) change over time, but, in the absent of explicit/proscriptive rules (which don't exist in relation to electrical matters), decisions about "potentially dangerous" are down to the judgements of individuals.

This, of course, while accepting that electricity itself is 'potentially dangerous' so perhaps it is just the terminology we use that is also unsatisfactory.

Indeed. I suppose what is really meant is "considered to be potentially unacceptably dangerous", or something like that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Indeed. I suppose what is really meant is "considered to be potentially unacceptably dangerous", or something like that.

Ok, but that still does not apply to a socket not covered by an RCD let alone a lighting circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

Ok, but that still does not apply to a socket not covered by an RCD let alone a lighting circuit.

I personally agree. However, "we" (society, as reflected by regs) seem to have divided that (in 2022) absence of RCD protection of a socket or lighting circuit was "considered to be potentially unacceptably dangerous".

Kind Regards, John