MSF100 Switch fuses and amended regs

[JohnW2]

Perhaps, but does BS7671 or JPEL/64 have the authority to interpret UK or other countries' law?

I don't think there is any need for them to do any 'interpreting' if all they are doing is to say that it is acceptable to work to alternative (by implication, other countries') regulations, is there? ... and, of course, we're not talking about 'laws' - at least as far as the UK is concerned.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I'm sure they're aware that installations to BS7671 are considered to be conformant to the UK Building Regulations, and to the EAWR, but that does not mean that some other unspecified installation standard can achieve a comparable level of conformity.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sure they're aware that installations to BS7671 are considered to be conformant to the UK Building Regulations, and to the EAWR, but that does not mean that some other unspecified installation standard can achieve a comparable level of conformity.

That's surely "not their problem". They simply publish a Standard. If any legislation wishes to reference that Standard, then that's up to the legislators - who really should first look to see whether the Standard they're referencing says that working to some other Standard(s) is an acceptable alternative, shouldn't they?

Mind you, the UK legislation, per se, doesn't say anything about compliance with BS7671, anyway!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

You're missing my point John. If indeed there is such a statement in BS7671, then there shouldn't be, unless the members of the JPEL are sufficiently knowledgeable about all the other countris' installation standards to make an informed statement as to their suitability. If the legislators accept that any other unspecified standard can achieve the same performance as one to BS7671, then they are surely incompetent!

 

[JohnW2]

You're missing my point John. If indeed there is such a statement in BS7671, then there shouldn't be, unless the members of the JPEL are sufficiently knowledgeable about all the other countris' installation standards to make an informed statement as to their suitability. If the legislators accept that any other unspecified standard can achieve the same performance as one to BS7671, then they are surely incompetent!

It's difficult to disagree with any of that.

I think we need to wait until I am reunited with my books to ascertain exactly what the statement is, and whether it is actually in BS7671, or elsewhere. I am sure that I (and others) cannot just have found it in a dream!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There used to be guidance in AD P to the effect that working to a standard of another member of the EEA would lead to compliance with Part P.

 

[JohnW2]

There used to be guidance in AD P to the effect that working to a standard of another member of the EEA would lead to compliance with Part P.

Ah, maybe that's where it is, and I probably have that here on my laptop .... watch this space ....

<pause for reading>

... nope, I can't find such a statement in the current Approved Doc P. It seems to talk only of compliance with BS7671 as being one way of demonstrating compliance with Part P - although it does, of course, also say that there is no compulsion to use the methods mentioned in AD P, and that other methods of showing compliance with Part P can be used.

Did we all dream it?!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

511

 

[JohnW2]

511

Thanks, I'm glad we did not all dream it up!

However, as I've said, I'm currently separated from my BYB, so I wonder whether it says roughly what we all seem to think it says?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

511 is for selection of equipment, and basically says that if you use something that is not in accordance with a British or harmonised standard, you have to demonstrate that it is safe.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So - everything, then.

 

[JohnW2]

511 is for selection of equipment, and basically says that if you use something that is not in accordance with a British or harmonised standard, you have to demonstrate that it is safe.

I see. I'll be interested to read the chapter and verse when I'm reunited with the book!

If I were asked to do that 'demonstrating', and although I agree this has nothing to do with 'foreign standards/regulations', I might well try arguing that if (in the UK) a plastic CU is regarded as 'safe' in all sorts of buildings (including, for example, day-centres for children/aged/frail/disabled/blind etc. etc. etc.), it therefore would presumably also be 'safe' in domestic dwellings!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

511 is for selection of equipment, and basically says that if you use something that is not in accordance with a British or harmonised standard, you have to demonstrate that it is safe.

AFAIK, there is no British or harmonised standard which requires CUs etc to be non-combustible.

 

[stillp]

Not even BS7671 BAS? That looks like a British Standard to me.

 

[JohnW2]

Not even BS7671 BAS? That looks like a British Standard to me.

I believe BAS believes that particular regulation in BS7671 to be 'invalid', because it requires something impossible.

Kind Regards, John