Reworded RCD Poll

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, and what are those circumstances? That the socket is provided to supply a specific piece if equipment and is so labeled.

You have to have a sound engineering reason to do it. Just omitting it because of a cynical disregard for the regulations and a deranged hatred of the fact that they change leads you to not want to provide RCD protection is unacceptable and non-compliant.

Whether you, I, or anybody else might consider it appropriate to omit the RCD if the piece of equipment would function perfectly well with it is immaterial to the question of whether it complies with BS7671 when BS7671 doesn't include such consideration as a condition of the exemption.

Yes it does - try reading Chapter 63.

We weren't talking about what you or anyone else considers to be best practice, only about whether the result complies with BS7671.

That is exactly what we are talking about because you are required to exercise reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design. Leaving off RCD protection because you just can't be bothered, or because you just don't want to do it is not reasonable, it is not skilful and it is not careful.

As I said already, a cost vs. benefit assessment. It's one socket, provided with the intent of feeding a specific piece of equipment, for which the absolutely tiny increase in safety RCD provision would provide may not be worth the cost of such provision compared to just running a few feet of cable to a regular socket.

Wrong.

Again.

You don't have to do anything.

Wrong.

Again.

You have to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the design and that includes taking into consideration the nature of the installation and who will be supervising it.

Obviously the designer/installer cannot be responsible for what somebody might do later.

No, but they are very much responsible for the provision of something which they know will later be in the charge of an ordinary person.

To which your reply was:

Wrong.

Again.

And I stand by that given that you must exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the design.

But then after you said that you need some specific reason and I asked you if BS7671 actually contains any such requirement in the exemption clause your reply was:

and ask again if BS7671 says anything about needing a specific reason.

It does not.

It does not.

But as a whole it does presume a certain amount of intelligence, integrity, professionalism and ability and willingness to exercise skill and care.

Again, remember this issue arose not on the basis of whether anybody might feel that it's a best practice, a good idea, or anything like that, only whether providing a socket for a specific piece of equipment and so labeling it would be compliant with BS7671.

You cannot separate those. If you do something which is not a good idea then you have not exercised reasonable skill and care.

Back when BS7671 required RCD protection only for sockets which might "reasonably be expected" to be used to power portable equipment outdoors, were you claiming that sockets even on the second floor of a building would still need RCD protection to be compliant unless you could be satisfied that they would never be so used? (Allowing for the fact that somebody could, quite easily, drop an extension lead out of an upper window.)

No, I would consider what is reasonable.

Were the second floor to be a maisonette or flat where the residents had garden maintenance responsibilities it might well be reasonable for them to drop an extension lead out of the window.

It could equally well be unreasonable for someone to eschew a suitable outdoor socket and use an indoor one on the ground floor.

You see, one of the differences between you and I is that I actually think about things, rather than put forward a simulacrum of real thinking which is actually nothing more than cynical rationalisation of decisions driven by a pathological aversion to complying with regulations.

 

[PBC_1966]

You have to have a sound engineering reason to do it. Just omitting it because of a cynical disregard for the regulations and a deranged hatred of the fact that they change leads you to not want to provide RCD protection is unacceptable and non-compliant.

Sound engineering reasons are often based on cost vs. benefit (cost covering both financial cost and cost in terms of amount of work involved).

Whether you, I, or anybody else might consider it appropriate to omit the RCD if the piece of equipment would function perfectly well with it is immaterial to the question of whether it complies with BS7671 when BS7671 doesn't include such consideration as a condition of the exemption.

Yes it does - try reading Chapter 63.

No idea what chapter 63 says as I don't have a copy, but I'll assume it's something to do with your other comments about exercising reasonable skill and care etc.

That is exactly what we are talking about because you are required to exercise reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design. Leaving off RCD protection because you just can't be bothered, or because you just don't want to do it is not reasonable, it is not skilful and it is not careful.

Exercising reasonable skill and care doesn't mean that you can't make a judgment about whether something is necessary in the particular case at hand and make use of an exemption which BS7671 itself provides.

As I said already, a cost vs. benefit assessment. It's one socket, provided with the intent of feeding a specific piece of equipment, for which the absolutely tiny increase in safety RCD provision would provide may not be worth the cost of such provision compared to just running a few feet of cable to a regular socket.

Wrong.

Again.

In your opinion. Others may well weigh up the tiny extra level of safety and conclude that it's not worth it - Especially if they already have a dozen other non-RCD sockets around the room which are the ones far more likely to be used for things like portable power tools rather than delving under the stairs to unplug a router and run an extension lead from there.

You have to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the design and that includes taking into consideration the nature of the installation and who will be supervising it.

Obviously the designer/installer cannot be responsible for what somebody might do later.

No, but they are very much responsible for the provision of something which they know will later be in the charge of an ordinary person.

I thought the whole idea of skilled vs. ordinary persons had been removed from BS7671 now?

Again, remember this issue arose not on the basis of whether anybody might feel that it's a best practice, a good idea, or anything like that, only whether providing a socket for a specific piece of equipment and so labeling it would be compliant with BS7671.

You cannot separate those. If you do something which is not a good idea then you have not exercised reasonable skill and care.

Perhaps in your opinion it is not a good idea. But BS7671 provides for an exemption, so clearly does not dismiss it as "not a good idea."

No, I would consider what is reasonable.

Were the second floor to be a maisonette or flat where the residents had garden maintenance responsibilities it might well be reasonable for them to drop an extension lead out of the window.

It could equally well be unreasonable for someone to eschew a suitable outdoor socket and use an indoor one on the ground floor.

Precisely.

You wouldn't reasonably expect somebody to ignore the weatherproof socket right by the back door when wanting to plug in the hedge trimmer and instead run the cord through the door to a socket on the wall inside. That doesn't mean somebody couldn't do it.

By the same token, so you don't reasonably expect somebody wanting to use a vacuum cleaner to go diving under the stairs to use a socket which was provided to power a router when there's one in the hallway outside, or to go behind that giant wall-mounted TV in the living room when there are other sockets more easily accessible around the room. But neither does that doesn't mean somebody couldn't do it.

You see, one of the differences between you and I is that I actually think about things, rather than put forward a simulacrum of real thinking which is actually nothing more than cynical rationalisation of decisions driven by a pathological aversion to complying with regulations.

But I'm not driven by the desire to believe that BS7671 is the be-all and end-all of electrical work, the desire to believe that even when BS7671 provides an exemption my personal beliefs about what should be required override that and thereby nullify any use made of that exemption, and the desire to try and use convoluted and contradictory interpretations of what "reasonably safe" means to support those beliefs.

Thinking about things, in this particular scenario, means that adding RCD protection to this one socket under the stairs, provided specifically for a router, is going to make such a tiny reduction of potential risk as to be inconsequential. You're probably more likely to be struck by lightning than ever to come to harm through having that non-RCD socket. You're certainly far more likely to be involved in an auto accident driving to B&Q to buy that RCD socket.

 

[JohnW2]

No idea what chapter 63 says as I don't have a copy, but I'll assume it's something to do with your other comments about exercising reasonable skill and care etc.

No. Chapter 63 is just one page about general aspects of "Certification and Reporting". I'm not sure what BAS's point was.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My point is that it is through Ch.63 that we get the requirement to exercise RSAC.

Which PBC is not - he is exercising immoral and cynical rationalisation of a decision made because he cannot be bothered, does not accept that things change, and does not like complying with regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

Which PBC is not - he is exercising immoral and cynical rationalisation of a decision made because he cannot be bothered, does not accept that things change, and does not like complying with regulations.

My goodness. I think it would probably be quite difficult to get more 'personal opinion' and 'assumptions', both stated as if they were facts, into one sentence if one wanted to!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

I think it would probably be quite difficult to get more 'personal opinion' and 'assumptions', both stated as if they were facts, into one sentence if one wanted to!

I think he specializes in that!

 

[JohnW2]

I think he specializes in that!

Very typical of people who commonly/regularly "assert", in situations in which others would probably preface their statements with "I think/believe...." or "In my opinion, ...." or similar phrases.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Shouldn't you have prefaced that with something similar John?

 

[JohnW2]

Shouldn't you have prefaced that with something similar John?

Technically, yes, but I think all the regulars here know that I work the other way around. On the fairly rare occasions on which I 'assert' (even when I appear to be stating facts, I usually accept and acknowledge that I may be wrong!) I make it fairly clearly that I am 'asserting' but, in all other situations, I write of my opinions or what I think/believe!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My goodness. I think it would probably be quite difficult to get more 'personal opinion' and 'assumptions', both stated as if they were facts, into one sentence if one wanted to!

Throughout all of the topics where related issues have been discussed recently he has had a consistent set of "values".

He consistently refuses to accept that things change - over and over and over again he has espoused the view that because something which was allowed to be done yesterday must still be OK because it's not required to update what is there.

He has consistently claimed that it is reasonable to ignore authoritative guidance on what is reasonably safe as long as some legacy installation remains even though that would no longer allowed to be installed.

Over and over and over again he looks for ways to do anything, anything at all, rather than comply with BS 7671, no matter how reasonable it would be to do so and no matter how unreasonable it is to not do so.

I realise that you share many, if not all, of his reprehensible views, so it comes as no surprise that you would seek to dismiss what I say on the grounds that it is "personal opinion" (as if his isn't FCS), but I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he is an irresponsible, immoral, dangerous and shameful presence here.

 

[PBC_1966]

He consistently refuses to accept that things change - over and over and over again he has espoused the view that because something which was allowed to be done yesterday must still be OK because it's not required to update what is there.

What I have actually said is that it is totally illogical to claim that something which you regard as being reasonably safe because it was installed a few years ago would not be just as reasonably safe if done today. The fact that BS7671 has changed in that time to specify some higher standard has not lowered the previous standard from whatever level of safety one considers it to have met.

Perhaps you would actually give a straight answer to a simple question?

If you were called upon to inspect an installation and you found a typical installation of, let's say, 30 years ago, with half a dozen sockets around a living room on a 30A fuse and no RCD, plus a couple of spurs to sockets which were obviously quite recent additions, but you couldn't tell whether they were added before or after 2008, how would you decide - using the criteria you've set out for determining what reasonable provision for safety means - whether the installation is reasonably safe?

He has consistently claimed that it is reasonable to ignore authoritative guidance on what is reasonably safe as long as some legacy installation remains even though that would no longer allowed to be installed.

You still haven't answered the question as to what makes you think the regulations in BS7671 cannot go beyond just reasonably safe to strive for a higher standard.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What I have actually said is that it is totally illogical to claim that something which you regard as being reasonably safe because it was installed a few years ago would not be just as reasonably safe if done today. The fact that BS7671 has changed in that time to specify some higher standard has not lowered the previous standard from whatever level of safety one considers it to have met.

Because things change.

That's the way it works.

And it works in all sorts of areas apart from electrical regulations.

Are you truly not familiar with the well established, widely encountered principle that when things change, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today, what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is not required to be updated or removed and replaced today, it just has to be no longer newly done?

My offer is still open:

I will stop telling you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new shortly after you stop pretending that there isn't.

You really, really, REALLY should take me up on it.

If you were called upon to inspect an installation and you found a typical installation of, let's say, 30 years ago, with half a dozen sockets around a living room on a 30A fuse and no RCD, plus a couple of spurs to sockets which were obviously quite recent additions, but you couldn't tell whether they were added before or after 2008, how would you decide - using the criteria you've set out for determining what reasonable provision for safety means - whether the installation is reasonably safe?

Firstly, please stop trying to conflate "the installation being reasonably safe" and "making reasonable provision for safety". One is a status, the other is an action, and it is the action which is the subject of the law.

As you know full well, if there is a date before which an act was acceptable and after which it is not, then if it cannot be determined when the act was done it cannot be determined if it was acceptable or not. Or is that another well established, widely encountered principle which you think you can successfully pretend does not exist?

Your argument seems akin to someone arguing that if they drove from A to B, and got there without having or causing an accident then their driving must have been safe. I think you would find that if you ever were up on a charge of dangerous, or without-due-care-and-attention, driving, saying "I can't have been because the end result was safe - I got there in one piece" wouldn't be a successful defence.

You still haven't answered the question as to what makes you think the regulations in BS7671 cannot go beyond just reasonably safe to strive for a higher standard.

Nothing.

What makes you think the regulations in BS7671 do go beyond just reasonably safe to strive for a higher standard?

 

[stillp]

Your argument seems akin to someone arguing that if they drove from A to B, and got there without having or causing an accident then their driving must have been safe. I think you would find that if you ever were up on a charge of dangerous, or without-due-care-and-attention, driving, saying "I can't have been because the end result was safe - I got there in one piece" wouldn't be a successful defence.

Perhaps a better simile might be driving on a motorway at 100 mph, the excuse being that there was a time when the speed limit did not exist, and many people drove at speeds greater than 70 mph without having an accident, so it must be safe enough.

 

[PBC_1966]

Firstly, please stop trying to conflate "the installation being reasonably safe" and "making reasonable provision for safety". One is a status, the other is an action, and it is the action which is the subject of the law.

Yes, and the status which arises from the action must be a result of that action. If you have made reasonable provision for safety, then how can the result be anything but an installation which is reasonably safe? Conversely, if what you do results is an installation which is not to be considered (by whatever criteria) reasonably safe, then you cannot have made reasonable provision for safety.

As you know full well, if there is a date before which an act was acceptable and after which it is not, then if it cannot be determined when the act was done it cannot be determined if it was acceptable or not.

In the case of some act which has explicitly been banned, yes. But you didn't really answer the question: Would you consider the installation as I described it to be reasonably safe? Or would you tell somebody that you couldn't form an opinion without finding out precisely when those sockets were added, so that if done on one day it was all fine and dandy but if done a couple of days later whoever did it was acting illegally, immorally, etc?

You still haven't answered the question as to what makes you think the regulations in BS7671 cannot go beyond just reasonably safe to strive for a higher standard.

Nothing.

So then why do you believe that you cannot make reasonable provision for safety unless you follow every single regulation within BS7671 to the letter?

What makes you think the regulations in BS7671 do go beyond just reasonably safe to strive for a higher standard?

Common sense application of basic electrical principles. And the fact that the committee responsible for those regulations itself doesn't automatically deem anything non-compliant with every one of the current regulations to be dangerous in any way.

 

[PBC_1966]

Perhaps a better simile might be driving on a motorway at 100 mph, the excuse being that there was a time when the speed limit did not exist, and many people drove at speeds greater than 70 mph without having an accident, so it must be safe enough.

But in that case whether you, I, the judge, or anybody else considers it "safe enough" is beside the point, as there is a specific statute which makes it an offense to drive in excess of 70 mph.

What we're talking about is nothing like as clear cut. We're talking about a vaguely defined requirement to make "reasonable provision" for safety, and a set of guidelines in the form of a British Standard, to which the statute makes no reference anyway.