Sockets Ring Wiring

[FingRinal]

He might not be allowed BAS.

Your electrician might refuse to certify his work with departures that he's not happy with. He might fall foul of his electrical body - NICEIC. NAPIT, Elecsa, ECA etc. who won't expect him to be still using old colours and listing departures on his certificates. Maybe not a hanging matter but why should even so much as an eyebrow be raised for no good reason?

It will be his or her work and as such it will be his or her signature on any certificate.

Electrical organisations such ECA, NAPIT, NICEIC etc. have standards of workmanship that they expect of their members and as a condition of membership. Some 'interfere' more than others.

BS7671 is the minimum standard of compliance for such people.

A Sparky might not be as stupid as he looks and that is always better than looking cleverer than you are.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BS 7671 has a regulation covering departures, and as long as the resulting degree of safety of the installation if using old colours is not less than that obtained by using the new colours then 120.3 allows the departure from 514.4.

It's all a bit convoluted, but as BS 7671 lays down requirements for, recognises the possibility of, and provides for the documentation of, departures it is not a contravention to depart from it in the proper manner.

Quite honestly it doesn't matter what ECA, NAPIT, NICEIC etc say - he is taking responsibility for his work, and one of his professional duties is to act in the best interests of his client. If he doesn't have the nous to think for himself and apply his professional judgement then he shouldn't be doing the job.

 

[FingRinal]

I'm afraid it does matter BAS, even if it doesn't matter to you.

If someone wishes to be a 'member' they have to abide by the rules of membership.

I agree if there is a conflict between what the Regs require and the 'Body' requires; but so long as what the 'Body' requires meets the minimum requirements of what the Regs require, the 'Body' wins as far as its members are concerned.

If people don't like it, they can leave.

If a Body wishes to set requirements that exceed those of BS7671, they are quite a liberty to do so and select or reject members accordingly.

But why do you reduce the electrician to the lowest common denominator? Leave the personal slurs aside. Whether you or anyone likes it or not, they have a professional responsibility and a professional 'liability' to consider.

 

[Cremeegg]

Different bodies have different rules which are in excess of BS7671. I'll name names and say that NICEIC have more rules than the others and are seen by some (many?) as being more interferring. Luckily I have a pragmatic assessor who would see the sense in using up old cable if th ereasons were explained to him. Certainly better than keeping a few reels back to use on jobs that you pretend were done prior to Part P.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm afraid it does matter BAS, even if it doesn't matter to you.

If someone wishes to be a 'member' they have to abide by the rules of membership.

What I meant was that (IMO) any electricians first responsibility, most important priority etc are professional standards and the duty of care owed to his clients.

I agree if there is a conflict between what the Regs require and the 'Body' requires; but so long as what the 'Body' requires meets the minimum requirements of what the Regs require, the 'Body' wins as far as its members are concerned.

In any conflict between the self-invented standards of a trade body and the electrician's professional duty then there ought to be no contest. The scenario above is not one which contravenes the regulations anyway.

If people don't like it, they can leave.

Or just elect to follow the dictates of professionalism rather than a non-standard non-statutory rule of lower importance.

If a Body wishes to set requirements that exceed those of BS7671, they are quite a liberty to do so and select or reject members accordingly.[/quote]
It would be interesting to see one of these bodies stand up in court and declare that they did not allow their members to behave professionally.

But why do you reduce the electrician to the lowest common denominator? Leave the personal slurs aside.

I didn't know I had. What personal slurs?

Whether you or anyone likes it or not, they have a professional responsibility and a professional 'liability' to consider.

Their professional responsibility is what I was talking about.

 

[FingRinal]

Oh dear, thought it couldn't last...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What couldn't?

 

[ericmark]

Each time I ask I am told the firm follows to regulations to the letter. Then I ask what core colours they use for 110 volt flex. Only one job at Sizewell power station have I ever seen Brown, Black, Green/Yellow. Everywhere else it has been Brown, Blue, Green/Yellow yet the regulation says for split phase supplies it should be Brown, Black can't even buy the stuff only reason used in Sizewell was we had three phase splitter boxes.
Hands up anyone who follows the rules by the letter! Because I don't believe it. I agree with Ban all sheds some common sense must be used.
Eric

 

[davelx]

Is there some rule of membership of these bodies that says a member can never do work other than under the auspices of that body?

If not, then surely the electrician could do the work and issue a generic EIC for that, provided that he made it clear to his client that the work was not covered by his membership of the trade body. Always provided, of course, that working under the auspices of his trade body is not a condition of his insurance/indemnity cover.

And if so - how would would they ever know?

 

[FingRinal]

Issuing 'generic' certificates might be an infringment of membership.

Afterall, if someone chooses you because you are a member of XYZ Accredited body, you turn up in a vehicle emblazoned with their logos, you show you membership ID, you wear branded clothing and then you issue a 'generic' certificate, how do you think XYZ would take that? More to the point, how would the customer take it?

 

[davelx]

"Issuing 'generic' certificates might be an infringment of membership. "

Yes, I know - that was implied by what I asked. Do you know the answer?

As I also wrote: he would have to make it clear to the customer what he was doing.

So I would expect him to explain exactly why he was proposing that approach and what the alternatives were and the pro's and con's of each. The customer decides which of the two approaches he wants to pay for - doing the job to NIC standards, which would cost more, or doing it to 7671 standards, which would be cheaper.

So long as it is all explained to the customer I see no problem.

 

[FingRinal]

You failed to mention whether or not he has asked his 'Organisation'.

Or is he supposed to lie to them? Keep them in the dark?

Also, why do you assume that one approach is automatically cheaper than the other, or inferior then the other?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because it might be?

Let's assume that the 17th requirements for RCD protection of concealed cables are superior to the lack of such in the 16th.

Then let's assume that before the 17th there was a trade body whose technical experts had concluded that the 16th requirements were inferior to having wider RCD protection, and so they decided to make that level of RCD protection one of their standards and required all their members to work to that.

Then you've got the situation identified by davelx.

 

[FingRinal]

Then again, it might not be...

Let's not get side-tracked into the world of imaginary, narrowly defined examples which serve only to prove the point of the imaginary, narrowly defined examples.