RCB rating

[westie101]

Many British electricians can't see beyond what their current edition of BS7671 says though, so you may have difficult convincing them otherwise.

And even then get it slightly incorrectly!
I was talking to someone who had been told categorically that RFC's were now illegal and everything had to be spurs!

But back to the regs
Please explain how not complying with a non statutory CoP, but designing something that is equally safe could be illegal?

And as was commented on in another thread; if you install a 20A spur to a double socket that you know will be used to supply a washer and a dryer, that would not be acceptable. Saying that the regs allow it would not be a defence if something serious were to occur!

 

[Paul_C]

And as was commented on in another thread; if you install a 20A spur to a double socket that you know will be used to supply a washer and a dryer, that would not be acceptable. Saying that the regs allow it would not be a defence if something serious were to occur!

Indeed, and to my mind something as fundamental as a circuit which is not suitably rated and protected for the anticipated load is of far greater concern than the trivial matter of sockets having 100mA RCD protection instead of the currently specified 30mA.

And one doesn't even have to get into spurs to see this sort of problem. A double socket near to one "end" of a ring with such a heavy load can also result in that short leg of the ring cable being overloaded.

 

[Adam_151]

I thought the requirement to rcd protect sockets for outdoor use came in with the 15th, not the 16th?

I've certainly replaced boards installed in the early 1980's which had been fitted with those dymo embossed labels printed to say something like "There are no sockets in this installation suitable for use outdoors". Some other installs provided a socket with integral RCD next to the back door to plug the the flymo in

 

[riveralt]

Surely it is undeniable that a lot of governments ARE bad (and populated by idiots) and by default some of the regulations they impose are not good.

These 'idiots' are by elected by who - here's a clue - look in the mirror!

Blindly stating you should do something, merely because it is THE LAW, without stating whether that law is in itself good cannot be wise.
Blindly stating you should do something, even though it is not law and you are allowed to work out equally satisfactory methods without stating whether that method is in itself bad cannot be wise.

All my work meets the BS7671 relevant for the time of the installation - it does make life so much easier.
So I may be one those you seek to castigate above. But I sleep much sounder in my bed in the knowledge that following those guidelines is the most sound defence when giving evidence in court - your insurance company will also thank you.

The issue of whether those guidelines are right or wrong is immaterial and Paul_C's constant carping about them adds nothing to the debate.
In postulating his theories, hot air in most cases, which all seem to denigrate BS7671, he causes confusion amongst the target audience (DIYers) who often need simple(?) guidance on the right or wrongs on the work they propose.

 

[bernardgreen]

But I sleep much sounder in my bed in the knowledge that following those guidelines is the most sound defence when giving evidence in court - your insurance company will also thank you.

If they are guidelines then they are not enforcable.

The issue of whether those guidelines are right or wrong is immaterial

It is not immaterial, if the guidelines are wrong for a situation then a court while find fault with someone who follows them if that person could reasonably know the guidelines were wrong or give any indication that they might be wrong and yet still follow them.

There is a case about to go to court ( not electrical ) where the client suffered losses because the guidelines are wrong for the circumstances. The tradesman followed the guidelines even though it was obvious to people that he was having difficulty force fitting the guidelines to the work he was doing. It seems certain that he is going to be found liable for the losses incurred by the person who employed him.

 

[riveralt]

But I sleep much sounder in my bed in the knowledge that following those guidelines is the most sound defence when giving evidence in court - your insurance company will also thank you.

If they are guidelines then they are not enforcable.

Who said anything about them being enforceble - I simply said I follow them - that would be my defence.

The issue of whether those guidelines are right or wrong is immaterial

It is not immaterial, if the guidelines are wrong for a situation then a court while find fault with someone who follows them if that person could reasonably know the guidelines were wrong or give any indication that they might be wrong and yet still follow them.

Show me one case where someone following BS7671 has been found guilty of breaching any of the various laws, H&S, EAWR etc.

There is a case about to go to court ( not electrical ) where the client suffered losses because the guidelines are wrong for the circumstances. The tradesman followed the guidelines even though it was obvious to people that he was having difficulty force fitting the guidelines to the work he was doing. It seems certain that he is going to be found liable for the losses incurred by the person who employed him.

Then its hardly relevant here is it and really is grasping at straws.
I repeat show me one case, just one, where someone following BS7671 has been found guilty of breaching any of the various laws, H&S, EAWR etc.

 

[EFLImpudence]

These 'idiots' are by elected by who - here's a clue - look in the mirror!

Not guilty. Do you have a choice in your constituency? Are you satisfied with the standard of our 'representatives'?

Blindly stating you should do something, merely because it is THE LAW, without stating whether that law is in itself good cannot be wise.
Blindly stating you should do something, even though it is not law and you are allowed to work out equally satisfactory methods without stating whether that method is in itself bad cannot be wise.

All my work meets the BS7671 relevant for the time of the installation - it does make life so much easier.

That is Paul's argument - they keep changing but all are/were safe. Nevertheless my quote still stands.

So I may be one those you seek to castigate above.

Not castigating anyone.

But I sleep much sounder in my bed in the knowledge that following those guidelines is the most sound defence when giving evidence in court - your insurance company will also thank you.

Guidelines.

The issue of whether those guidelines are right or wrong is immaterial

Very telling.

 

[JohnW2]

Not guilty. Do you have a choice in your constituency?

Totally irrelevant, but I am disenfranchised to a greater extent than virtually anyone reading this. I live in the constinuency of The Speaker - which means, by long-standing tradition, that none of the major parties offer a competing candidate. At the last election, I therefore had the choice between voting for him or someone very likely to lose their deposit!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

The issue of whether those guidelines are right or wrong is immaterial ....

Like EFLI, I'm not so sure about that (I wouldn't sleep that well at night if I believed I'd done something 'wrong' but compliant), but...

....and Paul_C's constant carping about them adds nothing to the debate. In postulating his theories, hot air in most cases, which all seem to denigrate BS7671, he causes confusion amongst the target audience (DIYers) who often need simple(?) guidance on the right or wrongs on the work they propose.

As a somewhat atypical 'DIYer' and someone who has been known to participate in those debates, I'm very conscious of this - and certainly try to avoid suggesting or implying that any DIYer should do anything non-compliant. From a personal point of view, one of the problems is that such discussions (sometimes critical of the regs) interest me, and I don't know where else I would be able to participate in them; most "electrician's forums" probably wouldn't welcome me - at least, if I got found out for what I am (or am not)!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[jonifife]

Cheers fellas- debate on here is much livelier than the building forum! I asked a question about screw sizes and got no response. Good to get a range of opinions.

Had I not been fitting a new circuit I would have been none the wiser to the mA requirement and my out of date cu would have remained for however long!

What doesn't quite make sense is if it was that dangerous then it should be in the part P regs rather than the wiring regs? - under part P I could have arguably done the additional sockets myself as spurs off an existing circuit.

I think I will see if the 30ma can be fitted for the new circuit on the current cu and maybe get the board changed when I have saved up a bit.

Cheers

 

[JohnW2]

What doesn't quite make sense is if it was that dangerous then it should be in the part P regs rather than the wiring regs?

That's the problem. The only legislation (Part P of the Building Regs) says nothing other than a very general statement about 'doing things safely' - that's why most people rely on the (theoretically non-mandatory) Wiring Regs.

The fact is, howvere, if one ever got into a legal argument about this, it would almost certainly be held that compliance with the Wiring Regs satisfied the requirement of Part P to 'do things safely' - so, albeit not literally possessing the teeth of legislation, the Wiring Regs are effective what matter..

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

The real question is to what standard should/will "reasonable" be held. The standard at the time the law was passed or the standard that the IEEE have come up with since then.

Also what makes an instructed person. Does giving the householder instructions on safe drilling practices to avoid drilling through cables make them an instructed person?

 

[JohnW2]

The real question is to what standard should/will "reasonable" be held. The standard at the time the law was passed or the standard that the IEEE have come up with since then.

I obviously cannot speak for those who would decide that, but I suspect that (as I think most people assume), the IET's regs at the time the work was undertaken would be considered to be the 'reasonable standard' for that work. Therein is part of Paul's problem, since it often means that new work has to comply with regulations with which most of the installation would not be compliant.

However, I don't really see any other sensible option for officialdom to take. It's obviously inappropriate for them to demand that all installations are brought 'up-to-date' every time the Wiring Regs are revised, but it would also be a bit odd if they accepted the concept of new work only having to comply with obsolete regulations.

The Also what makes an instructed person. Does giving the householder instructions on safe drilling practices to avoid drilling through cables make them an instructed person?

Quite; that's obviously related to questions about the length of a piece of string.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Does giving the householder instructions on safe drilling practices to avoid drilling through cables make them an instructed person?

If you read the definition in Part 2 it does for the scope of drilling into walls.

 

[Risteard]

Does giving the householder instructions on safe drilling practices to avoid drilling through cables make them an instructed person?

It is not reasonable to consider a domestic premises ever to be under the supervision of either a skilled or an instructed person. Anyone can come in. The house can be sold.

Therefore a domestic premises must always be considered to be under the supervision of ordinary persons.