Regulations on new work

[ebee]

I think the people asking the questions are given all the facts and then it is up to them to decide for themselves.

In a nutshell.
BS7671 is not, in itself, compulsory therefore an installation would not need to be uprated from the 16th Edition to the 17th Edition just to satisfy the Building Regs (Part P) at the time of inspected compliance to Building Regs.
BS 7671 is a very good way of trying to comply with all legal requirements (including Part P),
BS 7671 is probably the most effective way and the most practical way of doing this. Other ways might be less easy to achieve with certainty in Britain but are not prohibited as such.
I would recommend adherence to BS 7671 at all times.


Ban never said anything that contradicted any of the above, he merely corrected some "Urban Myths".

I suggest you reread all that has been said, V E R Y S L O W LY in order to understand all that has been written in that you get an understanding of simple English before claiming truths to be "Misleading/dangerous/drivel"

 

[ebee]

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.

Existing............2 seperate old fashioned ceiling roses on seperate circuits but both have live feed to one pull switch and returns.

Could you just clarify this bit? I read it as you`ve got two circuits with the feeds of both into one terminal of the pull and returns of both into the other terminal of the pull but this might not be what you mean to say or I might have misunderstood.

 

[aflemi]

"Could you just clarify this bit? I read it as you`ve got two circuits with the feeds of both into one terminal of the pull and returns of both into the other terminal of the pull but this might not be what you mean to say or I might have misunderstood."

Yes ebee, you have understood. Thanks, I thought this post was getting slightly frantic and away from the original point for the last 2 pages.......
Simply want to get advice on what I should do, if I can, to comply post-alterations.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you've got two circuits. and you connect the permanent live from both into the same terminal on a switch then all of a sudden you haven't got two circuits you've got one, being fed in parallel by 2 MCBs/fuses.

This is a Bad Thing™ and needs to be sorted ASAP.

 

[saxondale]

I suggest you reread all that has been said, V E R Y S L O W LY in order to understand all that has been written in that you get an understanding of simple English before claiming truths to be "Misleading/dangerous/drivel"

like a terrier with a bone LOL

a one line post



"well it doesnt matter cause its not the law....." ? not misleading then ?

 

[aflemi]

If you've got two circuits. and you connect the permanent live from both into the same terminal on a switch then all of a sudden you haven't got two circuits you've got one, being fed in parallel by 2 MCBs/fuses.

This is a Bad Thing™ and needs to be sorted ASAP.

Understand, I will check that the 2 are definitely seperate circuits and not part of a well disguised loop. If seperate it has been that way for several years. Thanks.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"well it doesnt matter cause its not the law....." ?

But nobody has said that.

If you take the trouble to double-check, as I have just done (as I knew I hadn't said it, but I wanted to make absolutely sure that nobody else had) you won't find that statement anywhere in this thread.

So you have invented it, put it in quotes, and then held it up a an example of something being misleading.

How misleading is that?

How desperate and unethical is it to pretend that something has been said because you can't actually find evidence of it but have all along been objecting to, and insulting people over, a position which is not theirs but is purely of your own invention?

not misleading then ?

You are the one being misleading.

There is a word to describe people who deliberately make false statements in order to mislead others. I'm sure you know what it is.

 

[ebee]

If you are able to draw the circuit(s) it might help us to give you a bit more guidance about the practicalities.
In fact it will not suprise me if all parties find a broadish agreement about the actual practicalities ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[pompeygit]

Surely the whole point is clear. By working to BS7671 you are also complying with EAWR and if the job goes t*ts up you also have a clear defence in law. So I would say always work to the regs. Agree with what BAS says but you do need to cover your backside. The 17th is not an issue. We don't need to take it on till June.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Surely the whole point is clear. By working to BS7671 you are also complying with EAWR

And even if that doesn't apply (e.g. DIY) then you are complying with Part P (at least the P1 bit)

and if the job goes t*ts up you also have a clear defence in law.

That's what the EAWR say, and the Wiring Regs imply. I wonder to what extent though things could go t*ts up if you'd complied with BS7671. I guess in cases where they were trying to find out who had screwed up, or equipment malfunction?

So I would say always work to the regs.

So would I, apart from any trivial non-safety departures that might suit, but they can be documented on the EIC.

The 17th is not an issue. We don't need to take it on till June.

You can start now, if you want, can't you?

 

[saxondale]

"well it doesnt matter cause its not the law....." ?

But nobody has said that.

If you take the trouble to double-check, as I have just done (as I knew I hadn't said it, but I wanted to make absolutely sure that nobody else had) you won't find that statement anywhere in this thread.

So you have invented it, put it in quotes, and then held it up a an example of something being misleading.

How misleading is that?

How desperate and unethical is it to pretend that something has been said because you can't actually find evidence of it but have all along been objecting to, and insulting people over, a position which is not theirs but is purely of your own invention?

not misleading then ?

You are the one being misleading.

There is a word to describe people who deliberately make false statements in order to mislead others. I'm sure you know what it is.

BAS -today I asked two customers, my seven year old, the wife and a time served sparks to read your post thus


quote

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

and each of them relative to there age or experiance said does that mean you dont have to DO IT RIGHT ANYMORE THEN ?

your right in law but morally bankcrupt, missleading and down right dangerous and until you add " but it does need to comply with ......." I`m going to be on your back

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS -today I asked two customers, my seven year old, the wife and a time served sparks to read your post thus

quote

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

and each of them relative to there age or experiance said does that mean you dont have to DO IT RIGHT ANYMORE THEN ?

No it doesn't, it means that you don't have to comply with BS7671, as well you know, but for some pathetic and childish reason you have decided to keep on insulting me, and telling lies about me.

Maybe it makes you feel big, I don't know, but I do know this - I really don't care.

your right in law but morally bankcrupt, missleading and down right dangerous and until you add " but it does need to comply with ......." I`m going to be on your back

Well I'm sure that everyone else will enjoy that.

I am going to carry on correcting misconceptions, making accurate and truthful posts, and you, who seems to be the only one who is either incapable of understanding them, or is being wilfully obtuse in order to prolong the argument can do what you like.

You're going to be on my back? You can howl at the moon for all the good it will do you, for I will not see anything that you write - you have now joined the select group of people whose opinions I consider utterly worthless, and I'm now going to click this:



Goodbye.

 

[Softus]

 

[saxondale]

has he gone then ?

 

[ebee]

has he gone then ?

What sort of stupid question is that?
Once again showing a distinct lack of anything written in our language.
Perhaps it is not your mother tongue in which case we`d have been more sympathetic of your dilema as failure to understand a (to you) foriegn language.