Poll: How Many Installation(s) do I have?

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said, I "do not care" so long as it as high as would would be acceptable in a type-tested CU in a simple single-phase installation - which it is.

Indeed.

But you do not think that the exemption in the regulations which would allow you to use CUs with a conditional 16kA rating applies to you, so not caring about the rating of the devices means not caring whether you comply with the regulations.

That's up to you, of course, but it was because I did not expect you to want to take that attitude that I said "I hope in that case that your distribution boards contain 16kA devices .."

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed. But you do not think that the exemption in the regulations which would allow you to use CUs with a conditional 16kA rating applies to you, so not caring about the rating of the devices means not caring whether you comply with the regulations.

I've explained why. I believe that it is in the spirit of what was probably intended by a badly drafted regulation, and I would be very happy to argue that case should I find myself in Court accused of "not making reasonable provision ....".

I suspect that, despite the way it ended up being worded, the actual intent was that 530.3.4 should apply to CUs/DBs that were fed by a single phase, with an upstream fuse ≤100A protecting that phase, and under the control of ordinary persons. However, that's not what it says. Maybe a comment on the 18th DPC is indicated!

However, the 'ordinary persons' bit seems particularly daft. Why should CUs under the control of 'skilled or instructed' persons not be able to enjoy the same 'relaxation' as would be available if they were 'ordinary persons'. Is that not a bit AAF?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I've explained why. I believe that it is in the spirit of what was probably intended by a badly drafted regulation, and I would be very happy to argue that case should I find myself in Court accused of "not making reasonable provision ....".

But you are only having to contemplate that, and wonder about "the spirit of what was probably intended by a badly drafted regulation", because you will not accept that you can have more than one installation, because you do not believe that there is any sense in saying that a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it as an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes, the latter to such an extent that you would not be happy to argue that it was should you find yourself in Court accused of "not making reasonable provision ....".

I suspect that, despite the way it ended up being worded, the actual intent was that 530.3.4 should apply to CUs/DBs that were fed by a single phase, with an upstream fuse ≤100A protecting that phase, and under the control of ordinary persons. However, that's not what it says.

First of all that is what it says, courtesy of the definition of "electrical installation".

Secondly you have spent the last few days and countless posts arguing for an intent which conflicts with that.

However, the 'ordinary persons' bit seems particularly daft. Why should CUs under the control of 'skilled or instructed' persons not be able to enjoy the same 'relaxation' as would be available if they were 'ordinary persons'.

IHANI.

 

[JohnW2]

But you are only having to contemplate that, and wonder about "the spirit of what was probably intended by a badly drafted regulation", because you will not accept that you can have more than one installation ....

Indeed - well, at least, that I do not have more than installation, and I appear to be in good company (within a very small sample!) in believing that.

First of all that is what it says, courtesy of the definition of "electrical installation".

As I keep saying, that definition could apply to almost any collection of related electrical items, of which the one you are mentioning is but one.

Secondly you have spent the last few days and countless posts arguing for an intent which conflicts with that.

As above, of the many possible guesses/speculations about the 'intended meaning', your view differs from mine, and that of a good few others.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I keep saying, that definition could apply to almost any collection of related electrical items, of which the one you are mentioning is but one.

And as I keep saying, whilst that is true it is not unreasonable or senseless to regard a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it as an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes.

In fact, I would say that to insist that it cannot possibly have been the intention of the people who wrote BS 7671 that a CU and all its devices and final circuits was an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes is devoid of reason.

As above, of the many possible guesses/speculations about the 'intended meaning', your view differs from mine, and that of a good few others.

I am not going to let you get away with that.

You said

I suspect that, despite the way it ended up being worded, the actual intent was that 530.3.4 should apply to CUs/DBs that were fed by a single phase, with an upstream fuse ≤100A protecting that phase, and under the control of ordinary persons. However, that's not what it says.

Saying "As above, of the many possible guesses/speculations about the 'intended meaning', your view differs from mine, and that of a good few others" is absolutely not a valid response to me saying "Secondly you have spent the last few days and countless posts arguing for an intent which conflicts with that".

What my opinion is is of no relevance whatsoever to the fact that you really have spent the last few days and countless posts arguing that the intent of BS 7671 is different to what you said above is what you suspect the intent was.


As you have said more than once, the definition of "electrical installation" could be applied to almost any collection of related electrical items. But that means that it could be applied to a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it. That means that a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it could undoubtedly be called an "installation" with no conflicts with the definition.

You have a definition which makes each of your CUs an installation.

You have the circumstantial evidence of an Electrical Installation Condition Report expecting to be applied to only one CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it.

You suspect that the intention was indeed that 530.3.4 should apply to each of your CUs individually.


Frankly it beggars belief that anybody would at that point seek to create a different "intention" which disadvantaged them.

 

[JohnW2]

You suspect that the intention was indeed that 530.3.4 should apply to each of your CUs individually.

I do - but that is just a speculative personal opinion, which could easily be wrong.

Frankly it beggars belief that anybody would at that point seek to create a different "intention" which disadvantaged them.

Although I have voiced my opinion as to what they probably 'intended to write', that is not what they wrote, and you are usually the first person to point out that what matters is "what a regulation says", not what it probably should have said. I know you disagree but, if (per the majority of those who have voted) one works on the basis that I have a 3-phase installation, then "what the reg actually says" is that 530.3.4 does not apply to my installation. Given that basis, I am therefore not try to "create" anything - I am merely indicating "what the reg actually says".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I do - but that is just a speculative personal opinion, which could easily be wrong.

As is, and could be, your, and everybody else's, opinion of how many installations you have.

Although I have voiced my opinion as to what they probably 'intended to write', that is not what they wrote, and you are usually the first person to point out that what matters is "what a regulation says", not what it probably should have said.

That is true, but you have not formed an opinion of what was intended which conflicts with what is actually written, you have formed an opinion of what was intended and then because that was not explicitly written spent a great deal of time arguing that it was not intended.

I know you disagree but, if (per the majority of those who have voted) one works on the basis that I have a 3-phase installation, then "what the reg actually says" is that 530.3.4 does not apply to my installation. Given that basis, I am therefore not try to "create" anything - I am merely indicating "what the reg actually says".

By all means consider what the regulations actually say, or do not actually say.

Do they actually say that you can only have one installation? No.

Do they actually say that a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it is an installation? Yes.

 

[JohnW2]

By all means consider what the regulations actually say, or do not actually say. Do they actually say that you can only have one installation? No. Do they actually say that a CU and all its devices and final circuits originating at it is an installation? Yes.

Although the reply will inevitably be full of caveats and will, again, only be the opinion of the one person who writes it, I have sought the opinion of "the IET" on this matter.

Kind Regards, John