Regulations on new work

[Pensdown]

Normally the building regs that are current at the time of submission apply, even if they change between submission and approval.

But if the works were done pre 17th and the application was submitted after the 17th..... and as PP only refers to 7671 as a means of compliance.......

Pass

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Assume that the work has been done to BS7671 (2001/2004) and not notified but then the naughty DIYer decides to subsequently notify.

Would he (now) have to bring his 16th edition work up to meet 17th edition requirements ??

Why should he have to, when there is no requirement to work to BS7671?

 

[Stoday]

If you had replaced the two lights with two downlights, the work would not have been notifiable.

Now, how many lights did you have originally?

 

[saxondale]

Assume that the work has been done to BS7671 (2001/2004) and not notified but then the naughty DIYer decides to subsequently notify.

Would he (now) have to bring his 16th edition work up to meet 17th edition requirements ??

Why should he have to, when there is no requirement to work to BS7671?

your really just a one trick pony arn`t you - stop peddling your misleading and frankly dangerous drivel

can he put your name on the legal defence documents?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

your really just a one trick pony arn`t you - stop peddling your misleading and frankly dangerous drivel

Here we go again.

The question was would he have to bring his work up to 17th edition standards, to which I wondered how he could be made to do something that he doesn't have to.

If you think he would have to bring his work up to 17th edition standards, then who do you think would tell him he had to, and what legal basis would they use for telling him he had to?

Tell me why you think it is misleading to say here what is said in official government publications?

Tell me why you think it is dangerous to say here what is said in official government publications?

Tell me why you think it is drivel to say here what is said in official government publications? [EDIT] Apart from, of course, the fact that the official government publication itself might be drivel... [/EDIT]

 

[aflemi]

If you had replaced the two lights with two downlights, the work would not have been notifiable.

Now, how many lights did you have originally?

I had 2 traditional ceiling rose lights originally.

 

[ebee]

Part P does not require you to work to any particular set of standards, only to reasonable provision for safety.
Following the national code for any civilised country would probably meet this obligation.
Eg South African , American & Australlian standards for example.
Following BS7671 or the similar standard of an EU country are named as acceptable examples in the approved document.

Bans comments are neither drivel nor dangerous. He is correct

 

[aflemi]

ebee, thanks for your comments. At the risk of being lambasted, this is what I have done:
Existing............2 seperate old fashioned ceiling roses on seperate circuits but both have live feed to one pull switch and returns.
For both lights, I simply used a junction box to join the following to seperate terminals within the box:
1)Live circuit and feed to switch.
2)Neutral circuit.
3)Live switch return(tabbed)
4)All earths
I then took feed from 3) and 2) and connected to another junction box which 3 downlights fed seperately from. All neutral to one terminal, live to another and earth to another. The earth wire in each feed is bent back and fully taped over with insulating tape at the point where the feed enters the downlight connection box.

 

[saxondale]

Part P does not require you to work to any particular set of standards, only to reasonable provision for safety.
Following the national code for any civilised country would probably meet this obligation.
Eg South African , American & Australlian standards for example.

rubbish - "would probably.." might as well say wouldnt

Following BS7671 or the similar standard of an EU country are named as acceptable examples in the approved document.

Bans comments are neither drivel nor dangerous. He is correct

so what is the forum record for splitting hairs ? as you say BS7671 is the named standard or similar (now define similar - tell you what, there isnt one )

your (both) been clever wordsmiths nothing more nothing less, as I said if your happy to put your names on the defence documents then fair enough but but but since I`ve been reading your drivel i have yet to find one qualified, experianced, working sparks who says anything remotely similar

wordsmiths the pair and whilst you think your been academic and "this is what the law doesn`t say" ( very clever way of speaking too) your putting people and property at risk

back to your day jobs the pair of you would be the best advice you`ll read today

 

[ebee]

BS 7671 is the recognised standard in Britain.
It is non statutory (it does not have the force of law).
Other EU countries have similar standards (or codes) they may or may not be legal requirements in those countries.
The approved document suggests either BS 7671 or one of the other EU standards but does not prohibit standards of another country outside the EU.
I work to BS7671 (I hope) , I am a Registered Domestic Installer.
I would not attempt to work to standards other than BS7671 and never would in the past (including prior to it being a BS, ie just the IEE wiring regs).

Ban was merely pointing out that BS 7671 is not compulsory.
He is correct.
I suspect that he might agree that following it is the most practical solution, but he is correct in what he says unlike others who start making wild statements about fact and fiction.
If he gets up your nose for speaking the truth then it is your problem not his.

 

[saxondale]

BS 7671 is the recognised standard in Britain.
It is non statutory (it does not have the force of law).
Other EU countries have similar standards (or codes) they may or may not be legal requirements in those countries.
The approved document suggests either BS 7671 or one of the other EU standards but does not prohibit standards of another country outside the EU.
I work to BS7671 (I hope) , I am a Registered Domestic Installer.
I would not attempt to work to standards other than BS7671 and never would in the past (including prior to it being a BS, ie just the IEE wiring regs).

Ban was merely pointing out that BS 7671 is not compulsory.
He is correct.
I suspect that he might agree that following it is the most practical solution, but he is correct in what he says unlike others who start making wild statements about fact and fiction.
If he gets up your nose for speaking the truth then it is your problem not his.

doesnt get up my nose (or any other orrifice for that matter) as you yourself said BS7671 is not compulsary but the continuing " oh look at me arnt I clever with my words..." he posts (although very clever )is at best misleading and more likely downright stupid when the correct advise in any electrical matter is to follow BS 7671 and certify as needed.

Yes BS7671 is "not compulsary" neither is following the highway code or having lessons before flying a plane - you yourself follow it and so do the other proffesionals, advising the public they dont NEED to is negligant

 

[ban-all-sheds]

rubbish - "would probably.." might as well say wouldnt

Part P requires that you make reasonable provision for safety.

Are you seriously saying that if you worked to the standards of the USA, or Australia etc, that you'd end up with an installation that wasn't at least reasonably safe?

Your denigration of all standards apart from ours borders on xenophobia.

Following BS7671 or the similar standard of an EU country are named as acceptable examples in the approved document.

Bans comments are neither drivel nor dangerous. He is correct

so what is the forum record for splitting hairs ? as you say BS7671 is the named standard or similar (now define similar - tell you what, there isnt one )

The guidance in Approved Document P gives the official wiring standards of the following countries equal status to BS7671 from the point of view of complying with the law:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

your (both) been clever wordsmiths nothing more nothing less, as I said if your happy to put your names on the defence documents then fair enough but but but since I`ve been reading your drivel i have yet to find one qualified, experianced, working sparks who says anything remotely similar

Do you mean that you've never found one qualified, experienced, working electrician who knows anything about the law? That's shameful.

wordsmiths the pair and whilst you think your been academic and "this is what the law doesn`t say" ( very clever way of speaking too) your putting people and property at risk

Exactly how am I, or ebee, putting people and property at risk - have either of us advised anyone to do anything dangerous, or not to bother being safe?

doesnt get up my nose (or any other orrifice for that matter)

Yes - I've notice how calmly you react when a simple truth is posted here.

as you yourself said BS7671 is not compulsary but the continuing " oh look at me arnt I clever with my words..." he posts (although very clever )is at best misleading

In what way, exactly, are accurate and truthful statements misleading?

and more likely downright stupid when the correct advise in any electrical matter is to follow BS 7671 and certify as needed.

I've not advised anyone not to follow it, just pointed out that there's no legal compulsion to.

Yes BS7671 is "not compulsary" neither is following the highway code or having lessons before flying a plane - you yourself follow it and so do the other proffesionals, advising the public they dont NEED to is negligant

1) It may be that you can in places not follow the highway code and not end up contravening a road traffic act, I don't know.

2) I do know that you can't fly a plane without a licence, and even if you could pass the tests without having a lesson, you could not clock up the hours needed because you wouldn't be able to get insurance. But if it were legal to borrow a rich friends plane and fly around without a lesson, then it would not be misleading to say so.

I wouldn't advise people to try it though.

But I don't think it's necessary to mislead them.

 

[RF Lighting]

i have yet to find one qualified, experianced, working sparks who says anything remotely similar

I'm a qualified, experianced (sic), and working sparks.


The point BAS and ebee are trying to make is absoloutly correct.


One of the very first things I was taught when studying BS7671 at college, was that it is non statutory.

 

[saxondale]

i have yet to find one qualified, experianced, working sparks who says anything remotely similar

I'm a qualified, experianced (sic), and working sparks.


The point BAS and ebee are trying to make is absoloutly correct.


One of the very first things I was taught when studying BS7671 at college, was that it is non statutory.

you know that. I know that, BAS knows that but it isnt going to stop someone killing themselves because " i read it on the net that it wasnt needed after all I wasnt breaking a law.." and all the word play in the world from him (example - here`s a list of countries - irrespective of their voltage or earthing arrangements ) means nothing when I see yet another bathroom light taken unfused in 1mm from a shower feed

so for everytime someone posts " ah but it ISNT THE LAW.." someone needs to hammer home the point that although IT isnt THE LAW, not doing it CAN and WILL be used against you in a COURT OF LAW when the inevitable happens

very clever man our BAS, very good with words but an absolute fool with this advice - its misleading and in places downright dangerous

 

[ban-all-sheds]

you know that. I know that, BAS knows that but it isnt going to stop someone killing themselves because " i read it on the net that it wasnt needed after all I wasnt breaking a law.."

Please explain how someone could do something so unsafe that they kill themselves and not break the law that requires them to make reasonable provision for safety?

and all the word play in the world from him (example - here`s a list of countries - irrespective of their voltage or earthing arrangements )

I'm almost sure that in all of those countries the earthing arrangements are the same as ours.

I'm also sure that the voltages are now all the same.

And if you don't like that list, then please go and argue with the people who produced it - don't accuse me of misleading people because I've quoted it.

means nothing when I see yet another bathroom light taken unfused in 1mm from a shower feed

1) Are you seriously going to suggest that such a practice would comply with the regulations in any of the countries listed?
2) Will you please explain how doing that would not contravene the law requiring reasonable provision for safety, and then when you've done that will you please show where I've advised people that they don't have to comply with the law?

so for everytime someone posts " ah but it ISNT THE LAW.." someone needs to hammer home the point that although IT isnt THE LAW, not doing it CAN and WILL be used against you in a COURT OF LAW when the inevitable happens

1) Will you please explain how the "inevitable" (by which I assume you mean something bad) will happen if the law requiring reasonable safety is followed.
2) And if it does happen, there is no offence involving failing to comply with BS7671 with which you could be charged.

very clever man our BAS, very good with words but an absolute fool with this advice - its misleading

In what way it it misleading to tell the truth? Surely it's only misleading if it is not true?

and in places downright dangerous

Please show me where I've advised anybody to do anything dangerous.