No testing or MWC/EIC for 'Maintenence'??

[ban-all-sheds]

The Part P old 2006 version section 1.9 uses phrase "simplest of like for like replacements." as not requiring a minor works. It does not appear in the new English version.

Prior to 2006 Part P looked like this.



It has never had a "section 1.9".


PS - too slow....

 

[plugwash]

I look at:-

The requirements of Sections 631 and 632 for the issue of an Electrical Installation Certificate or a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate shall apply to all the work of the additions or alterations.

When one replaces even a simple light switch one has altered the installation.

I guess that is the question, does replacing failed/worn out parts with replacements to the same specification count as alteration or not.

 

[ericmark]

The Part P old 2006 version section 1.9 uses phrase "simplest of like for like replacements." as not requiring a minor works. It does not appear in the new English version.

I'm not familiar with that particular version - but, to the best of my knowledge, Part P has never changed (in either England or Wales), and has never had 'sections'. I suspect that you are probably talking about Approved Document P, which is entirely different - and is guidance, not law.

Kind Regards, John

Correct Approved Document P which is what people find when they look for the parts of building regulations. Personally I feel all the government information released on Part P leaves a lot to be desired.

However my point is that is where the like for like comes from. I am sure BS7671 would never refer to "simplest". This is the problem in trying to write the Approved Document P in layman's English they have as a result written a document which gives half truths and is open to miss interpretation.

I had an insurance job which included removing and re-fitting light fittings I noted the guy did test but did not record the readings. I can see where to write out a full minor works could take longer than the job and can see where electricians don't bother with paperwork but would still test and inspect even if no paper work is raised.

 

[JohnW2]

I guess that is the question, does replacing failed/worn out parts with replacements to the same specification count as alteration or not.

Given that we are talking primarily about requirements for testing and certifying the work which has been undertaken, common sense would suggest that the answer is probably 'yes'. Even if one is replacing an existing part with 'one to the same specification', there is still scope for that work to be undertaken incompetently/unsafely, just as much as if it were being replaced with something of a slightly different specification.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Correct Approved Document P which is what people find when they look for the parts of building regulations. Personally I feel all the government information released on Part P leaves a lot to be desired.

It may be what people often find, but (as it states itself) Approved Doc P is merely 'guidance', not law (i.e. not part of the Building Regs).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Personally I feel all the government information released on Part P leaves a lot to be desired.

It certainly does.

Not the least of which is the misnomer, Part P this and Part P that, attached to everything.

There is no need for Approved Documents, Best Practice Guides, Electrical Safety Council Guides, NICEIC's own rules, On-Site Guide etc. all of which will, because they are written by different people, contain inaccuracies and (mis)interpretations leading to the confusion which abounds.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

MINOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION WORKS CERTIFICATE NOTES:
The Minor Works Certificate is intended to be used for additions and alterations to an installation that do not extend to the
provision of a new circuit. Examples include the addition of socket-outlets or lighting points to an existing circuit, the relocation
of a light switch etc. This Certificate may also be used for the replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaires,
but not for the replacement of distribution boards or similar items. Appropriate inspection and testing, however, should always
be carried out irrespective of the extent of the work undertaken.

 

[JohnW2]

MINOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION WORKS CERTIFICATE NOTES:........

Yes, we've always discussed that. As EFLI said:

MEIWC (p394) "This Certificate may also be used for the replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaires, ... . Appropriate inspection and testing, however, should always be carried out irrespective of the extent of the work undertaken".I suppose it does say 'may' and is in an appendix but it does seem rather comprehensive and it would seem illogical to omit 'maintenance'..

As his says, it is the "may" which stops that being a clincher in this discussion, but I personally agree with him that it is logical to regard it as including 'maintenance' works (however one defines them!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

There is no need for Approved Documents <etc. etc.> because they are written by different people, contain inaccuracies and (mis)interpretations leading to the confusion which abounds.

Does not the problem start with Part P itself, which is so short (1 sentence) and vague that it essentially is necessary that there are other documents which give some specific detailed guidance - in particular, Approved Doc P which repeatedly indicates that compliance with BS7671 is a way of demonstrating compliance with Part P? Without that, no two people would have exactly the same views as to what constituted 'reasonable provisions', so that a lot of people wouldn't know what they had to do to comply with Part P and, perhaps more importantly for a bit of legislation, if would be next-to-impossible to ever enforce it.

It would have been much simpler and clearer if Part P has simply made it a legal requirement to comply with BS7671, but I suspect that legal, commercial, political, bureaucratic or whatever considerations preclude a British Standard being used as the basis of legislation in that sort of fashion - stillp may be able to tell us a bit about that.

KInd Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does not the problem start with Part P itself, which is so short (1 sentence) and vague that it essentially is necessary that there are other documents which give some specific detailed guidance

Not really. We have the Wiring Regulations (as you go on to say).

All the other things which purport to be Part P this and that must therefore have been written by those who either do not know or are trying to con.

in particular, Approved Doc P which repeatedly indicates that compliance with BS7671 is a way of demonstrating compliance with Part P? Without that, no two people would have exactly the same views as to what constituted 'reasonable provisions', so that a lot of people wouldn't know what they had to do to comply with Part P and, perhaps more importantly for a bit of legislation, if would be next-to-impossible to ever enforce it.

So, all it needs is another (one) sentence.

It would have been much simpler and clearer if Part P has simply made it a legal requirement to comply with BS7671, but I suspect that legal, commercial, political, bureaucratic or whatever considerations preclude a British Standard being used as the basis of legislation in that sort of fashion - stillp may be able to tell us a bit about that.

I don't really know as other standards are allowed but I was always mystified why, in every C&G test it asks "Which of the following is NOT statutory?" <a list containing BS7671>.

It always made me think that they were emphasising for some reason that it was NOT statutory.

 

[JohnW2]

Does not the problem start with Part P itself, which is so short (1 sentence) and vague that it essentially is necessary that there are other documents which give some specific detailed guidance

Not really. We have the Wiring Regulations (as you go on to say). ... So, all it needs is another (one) sentence. ... I don't really know as other standards are allowed but I was always mystified why, in every C&G test it asks "Which of the following is NOT statutory?" <a list containing BS7671>. ... It always made me think that they were emphasising for some reason that it was NOT statutory.

As I said, it would be so much simpler if the law simply required compliance with BS7671 - so the fact that it doesn't suggests to me that it's because of one of the (legal, commercial, bureaucratic etc.) reasons I mentioned. One obvious problem of having a law which says nothing other than "thou shalt comply with" a Standard published by an independent organisation is that, at least in theory, there can be no guarantee that the organisation will continue updating and publishing the Standard - so the law could end up 'meaningless'. It could also be that the BSI would be 'unhappy' about a piece of legislation which relied entirely on one of their Standards. As I said, stillp would seem to be a person who might be able to give some insight into these issues.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Approved Doc P which repeatedly indicates that compliance with BS7671 is a way of demonstrating compliance with Part P

Not in the latest version.

Yes, AD P does still refer to BS 7671 for definitions, and to say thing like "should comply with", but the crucial part about how to ensure compliance with the legislation now says this:

No mention of any need to comply with any particular EU or CENELEC, or EEA standard

It would have been much simpler and clearer if Part P has simply made it a legal requirement to comply with BS7671, but I suspect that legal, commercial, political, bureaucratic or whatever considerations preclude a British Standard being used as the basis of legislation in that sort of fashion - stillp may be able to tell us a bit about that.

It might, but I doubt that the same considerations would have prevented legislation requiring ".... shall be carried out in compliance with any national standard of any member state of the EU ...." or however it needed to be worded.

I also strongly doubt, to the extent of being unable to believe, that any legal, commercial, political, bureaucratic or whatever considerations could preclude a British Standard being used as the basis of legislation. I'm not aware of any individuals, groups, or foreign governments challenging our laws which decree driving on the left, or speed limits, or a 0.8 blood alcohol limit for drivers, or income tax rates or VAT rates, or excise duty, or age of consent, or voting age etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

OK - IANAL, but to be honest I don't think that there has ever been anything out of our control which would have prevented us from mandating compliance with BS 7671 if we had wanted to.

The thing is, we never did - the whole idea of bringing electrical work into the scope of the Building Regulations was nothing more than a bone thrown to the dogs of the electrical contracting industry special interest groups to stop them barking for the same clout and money-making opportunities which the gas industry bodies had.

And, finding that I quite like that analogy, I'll continue and observe that just like a dog given a bone, their instinct was to take it, chew it up, and bury it.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, AD P does still refer to BS 7671 for definitions, and to say thing like "should comply with", but the crucial part about how to ensure compliance with the legislation now says this: ....
No mention of any need to comply with any particular EU or CENELEC, or EEA standard.

Agreed - but, as you say, there are repeated statements that things should comply with, or be done in accordance with, BS7671 (e.g. in 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.10 & 3.13).

OK - IANAL, but to be honest I don't think that there has ever been anything out of our control which would have prevented us from mandating compliance with BS 7671 if we had wanted to.

As you say, I'm sure that it would be legally/constitutionally possible - there are plenty of examples of legislation which include requirements to comply with various Standards etc. The main thing I was suggesting was that it would be 'dangerous' to have legislation which said nothing other than "thou shalt comply with BS7671", since that would leave the entirety of that legislation 'at the mercy' of the continued existence of (and continued acceptability of the contents of) that Standard - things that would be beyond the control of legislators.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

The Schuko socket is a major problem our regulations do not permit them but they are an European standard.

I have never read a German regulation book but I think likely there are other things which must be done to make the use of Schuko safe likely something like the use of twin pole MCB's.

New products have required changes in BS7671 and likely will continue to do so and so it can't really be law there must be room to allow change.

I looked carefully at what it said about RCD protection and I could not see how you could use a RCD on a SELV supply not sure if changed with amendment 1 but to me the idea of fitting a RCD on a 12 volt supply is crazy even if you could find a RCD which would work on 12 volt to me clearly an error with BS7671:2008 which is no problem as it's not law. However any error like that would be a huge problem if it were to become law.

I know my son has had huge arguments with imported German equipment with Schuko sockets provided in the main for things like laptop charging while programming a PLC. He does not want any Schuko sockets on site but the Germans insist they comply with European standards but like me he can't read German so can't ensure it complies with a standard which is not written in English.

If BS7671:2008 was to become a legal document it would need a Welsh version and to translate means some interpretation and would mean we could easy have conflicting regulations as a result would be easier to translate from French to Welsh than English to Welsh.

We have enough problems with road signs saying "I am out of the office I will get back to you" in Welsh but give directions to car park in English never mind a whole regulation book.

 

[plugwash]

The Schuko socket is a major problem our regulations do not permit them but they are an European standard.

I have never read a German regulation book but I think likely there are other things which must be done to make the use of Schuko safe likely something like the use of twin pole MCB's.

I've never read a german regs book either but It's pretty easy to think this through from first principles.

In general you want switches and protective devices to be twin pole if there is a possibility of L-N reversal UPSTREAM of the protective device.

So a reversable socket would not be a reason to put DP fuses/breakers/ switches in the fixed installation but it would be a reason to put them in the portable appliances. In other words the design considerations needed to make a reversable socket safe are more about appliance design than installation design.

I suspect the reason for forbidding reversable sockets in BS7671 is the worry that older or custom built appliances that are not to harmonised standards may be rendered unsafe by connection to them either directly or through the use of adaptors. It's a fairly small risk but one that is difficult to eliminate completely in an uncontrolled environment.