Terminating unused electric cable

[JohnW2]

No, just pointing out that it is not only criminal courts that might have an interest in failure to follow a current standard.

Oh, I see. In that case you would probably have done better to mention Civil Courts - since, unlike Coroner's Courts, they have the ability to 'do something about/against' the person who had done the failing (award damages against him/her). However, just as with a Coroner's Court, that would only be applicable in the very rare cases in which some harm/damage had resulted from the failure to follow a current Standard.

Nor, of course, could (in the 'electrical work' case) a Criminal Court pursue someone for failure to follow a current Standard, per se, since there is no legislated requirement to comply with any Standard - the Court would have to be convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that one had failed to "make reasonable provision for safety" etc., by producing some argument which went beyond the failure to comply with any particular Standard(s).

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

you would probably have done better to mention Civil Courts

I was relating a case of which I had personal experience.

 

[JohnW2]

you would probably have done better to mention Civil Courts

I was relating a case of which I had personal experience.

I realise that, but I'm not sure what relevance it has to our discussion - unless, as I said, the witness had been claiming that his product was 'safe' because of compliance with some superseded Standard (which you have said was not the case), and the Court had concluded that it did not agree with that view.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I give up.

 

[PBC_1966]

Ultimately, in the case of work which is perfectly safe, not caused harm to anyone, but which the local authority is somehow "unhappy" about, it would be for the local authority to take the homeowner to (criminal) court for failure to comply with the Building Regulatons. And there they could present all the evidence they have to show that the work is not reasonably safe - Which would be what, exactly?

 

[JohnW2]

Ultimately, in the case of work which is perfectly safe, not caused harm to anyone, but which the local authority is somehow "unhappy" about, it would be for the local authority to take the homeowner to (criminal) court for failure to comply with the Building Regulatons. And there they could present all the evidence they have to show that the work is not reasonably safe - Which would be what, exactly?

That's my point. If the work has not caused any harm or damage, and particularly if (per your comments) it would have been compliant with regs a few years ago, I find it extremely hard to imagine what 'evidence' they could produce that could possibly convince a Court, 'beyond reasonable doubt', that the work was not "reasonably safe".

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

I find it extremely hard to imagine what 'evidence' they could produce that could possibly convince a Court, 'beyond reasonable doubt', that the work was not "reasonably safe".

Precisely. And perhaps that's why I don't think I've ever heard of such a case being brought. (Although admittedly I might be a little out of touch now, so if anyone knows different.....)

 

[JohnW2]

Precisely. And perhaps that's why I don't think I've ever heard of such a case being brought. (Although admittedly I might be a little out of touch now, so if anyone knows different.....)

One would assume (hope, for their sakes) that in a situation such as I have described, their legal folk would probably advise them that they stood a very slim chance of winning.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's my point. If the work has not caused any harm or damage, and particularly if (per your comments) it would have been compliant with regs a few years ago, I find it extremely hard to imagine what 'evidence' they could produce that could possibly convince a Court, 'beyond reasonable doubt', that the work was not "reasonably safe".

And yet you do find it imaginable that a court could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that work about which there was no contention whatsoever that it complied with the current version of the wiring regulations was not even reasonably safe.

 

[JohnW2]

....I find it extremely hard to imagine what 'evidence' they could produce that could possibly convince a Court, 'beyond reasonable doubt', that the work was not "reasonably safe".

And yet you do find it imaginable that a court could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that work about which there was no contention whatsoever that it complied with the current version of the wiring regulations was not even reasonably safe.

Goodness - are you still going on about my "no absolute guarantee" comment ??

No, I find it "extremely hard to imagine" that either of those things would happen - but, in both cases there is "no absolute guarantee", any more than there is about any Court ruling.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

A court might find a person guilty if :-

1. the work that complied with the regulations had led to injury because the regulations had not foreseen the circumstance that caused the injury

and

2. common sense or basic knowledge was enough to realise the regulations had not foreseen the circumstances in which the injury occurred.

A case that almost went to court was when "trained" first aiders following regulations would not go near the victim of a severe electric shock ( non fatal but burns ) as he was lying on the ground close to the wooden pole carrying the undamaged 11kV cables. The regulations were "do not approach a victim of high voltage shock until the electricity supply has been turned off and the area verified as safe by the electricity company " Passers by went to his help and treated him. They pointed out that the casualty was lying on a public footpath that passed under the over head wires and was used by dozens of people every day. The legal opinion given was that had the casualty died then, given that he was lying on the ground on a public footpath, the first aiders could have been charged with something and given a light or suspended sentence. The first aid training company that had trained them was advised to ammend its advice and rules.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Goodness - are you still going on about my "no absolute guarantee" comment ??

Yes, I am.

No, I find it "extremely hard to imagine" that either of those things would happen - but, in both cases there is "no absolute guarantee", any more than there is about any Court ruling.

Remember you are not talking about a court simply ruling in relation to somebody's original actions. You are saying that a court, when considering work done in a domestic dwelling which every single expert witness had said was perfectly compliant with the latest version of the Wiring Regulations, might be found to have contravened Part P. You are saying that a court might rule that complying with the British Standard for the design, erection and verification of electrical installations is not even reasonably safe. And you are putting that forward as something to be considered because there is no absolute guarantee of any court ruling.

That train of thought has left Ridiculous Junction, and will soon be arriving at Fatuous Parkway.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A court might find a person guilty if :-

1. the work that complied with the regulations had led to injury because the regulations had not foreseen the circumstance that caused the injury

and

2. common sense or basic knowledge was enough to realise the regulations had not foreseen the circumstances in which the injury occurred.

Please give a plausible example of how 1 & 2 could arise within the context of electrical work in a domestic dwelling which unquestionably complied with the current version of BS 7671.

 

[JohnW2]

A court might find a person guilty if :-
1. the work that complied with the regulations had led to injury because the regulations had not foreseen the circumstance that caused the injury, and
2. common sense or basic knowledge was enough to realise the regulations had not foreseen the circumstances in which the injury occurred.

This is probably going to sound a bit like BAS talking ....

If the regs all related to technical detail then, yes, given that no regulations can be totally exhaustive, it's possible that they will have overlooked some potentially unsafe situation, and that is really what I had in mind when all this discussion started.

However, BS7671 contains some 'vague' general regulations (much of Chapter 13), which are not dissimilar from Part P in just requiring things to be done 'safely' - for example, 132.1 requires that an electrical installation shall be "designed by a skilled person to provide for the protection of persons, livestock and property". If, per what you suggest above, it was 'obvious' that the regs had overlooked a safety-relevant situation/issue, work done which did not take that into account (but which complied with all the 'technical detail' regs) would probably be regarded as non-compliant with BS7671, because of those 'general' regulations.

So, as I have implied before, the presence of those 'general' regulations in BS7671 (similar to Part P) make BAS's viewpoint almost 'self-fulfilling' - in the sense that anything regarded as not complying with part P would probably also be regarded as not complying with those 'general' requirements of BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

132.1 requires that an electrical installation shall be "designed by a skilled person to provide for the protection of persons, livestock and property".

requires that an electrical installation shall be "designed by a skilled person in such a way as to avoid causing harm to persons, livestock and property"

By being non specific and it seems intentionally "vague" they are I guess opening the door for people to use common sense as well as the basic but vague requirements set out in the regulations.

So why not say "use your common sense "

For BAS the oft repeated mention of PME and bonding the Neutral derived "Earth" (aka CPC ) at the MET to a supply pipe that has a very low impedance to ground. Even without a fault in the network but with a large phase un-balance the current from incoming Neutral through the bond cable to the low impedance ground path can be several amps.

Blind obediance to the regulations would require that bond to be in place. Common sense would suggest that either the installation is TT using that low impedance ground path or some other method is used to ensure that in the event of a Neutral disconnect in the network the current in that bond is limited so as not to over heat the bond.

And yes BAS I know a hill top comms station is NOT a domestic but the basic effect of a failed Neutral and a sub 1 ohm path to ground resulted in a lot of damage to equipment as ground bonding over heated. On a domestic situation several fires have been started by over heating bond wires ( mostly where the CCC of the bond was too small ).