Why "No RCD protection on lighting circuit"?

[JohnW2]

Just what is the root of your objection to the principle that when the regulations change everybody has to comply with them?

I have no such objection. However, regulations do not necessarily have to change in a manner that requires any new work to be to a different standard than that of the majority of the the installation. For example, as I've said, a new requirement could relate only to 'new installations' (however defined).

That is such a fundamental change to the basis of how the regulations work that I am now convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that what you really don't like is the whole idea of regulations changing.

Utter nonsense.

In many safety-critical fields, there is not this confusion of "non-retrospective" regulations. If, for example, the PTB decreed that seat cushions in airliners had to be made out of some new ('safer') material, that would not usually mean that only newly-installed cushions had to comply, leaving potentially hundreds of non-compliant ones still in the same aircraft as the few 'safer' ones. If they did accept a situation in which, say, two 'safe' cushions existed in the same aircraft as 248 which were now regarded as 'unsafe', there would, IMO, be something very questionable about their reasoning.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just for your information, PBC, in every regulation exam, there is always a question:

"Which of the following is NOT statutory?" and one of the options is BS7671 along with three statutory bodies.

It's as if they want to emphasize that it is not law. I've never understood why.

 

[JohnW2]

Just for your information, PBC, in every regulation exam, there is always a question: "Which of the following is NOT statutory?" and one of the options is BS7671 along with three statutory bodies. It's as if they want to emphasize that it is not law. I've never understood why.

Yes, it's very odd - but I think the actual situation (rather than just the exam question) which is the really odd thing.

AIUI, many (maybe most) developed countries do have legislated detailed electrical regulations/'codes', which avoids this problem. Maybe the UK government just can't be bothered to take on that task. In many fields, there seems to be a (perhaps understandable) reticence on the part of (UK) government to legislate to mandate compliance with a set of (ever changing) rules/regulations over which they have no direct control.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Re my earlier question about replacing the previous ones - that's not unheard of here with doors, when people have altered a property in a way which introduces a requirement for fire-doors, they quite often store their lovely period doors and put them back once the work has been signed off.

Of course - And the bureaucrats who come up with these regulations must be daft if they think that people aren't going to do such things.

Back in the 1990's the U.S. government stipulated that all new toilets sold must have a flush no greater than 1.6 gallons. Some of the early 1.6 g.p.f. toilets were not very good, because the manufacturers hadn't yet redesigned them to flush efficiently with the reduced volume of water. So there were stories of some people bringing back the 3.5 g.p.f. toilets from Canada, or obtaining good used ones during refurbishments when they needed a replacement.

As I intimated before, I would have a lot of sympathy with the concept of requiring all installations to be fully compliant with a regulation "X years" after that regulation came into force - but attempting to implement, let alone 'police', that would probably present almost insuperable problems.

Here in California, not only is there now the new state law about having to replace all non-compliant plumbing fixtures when doing some totally unrelated work in a home, but that they're also requiring all such fixtures to be replaced by 2017 even if no other work is being done. (Non-compliant means >1.6 g.p.f. toilet, >2.5 g.p.m. shower heads, and >2.2 g.p.m. faucets.) How they think that's ever going to be enforced except when somebody applies for a permit to do other work or when a property changes hands is anybody's guess. Not to mention, of course, that in either case the owner will just replace with whatever he wants anyway, assuming that he still has or can acquire the "non compliant" fixtures (there are plenty of 30- to 40-year old NOS faucets and such on eBay).

Apparently this new 2017 law is to apply only to homes built before 1994, since anything built after that was required to have the low-consumption plumbing fixtures from new anyway. And of course, we know that nobody would have ever dreamed of pulling them out and replacing them with something else since then, right?

 

[PBC_1966]

Just for your information, PBC, in every regulation exam, there is always a question:

"Which of the following is NOT statutory?" and one of the options is BS7671 along with three statutory bodies.

It's as if they want to emphasize that it is not law. I've never understood why.

Interesting, thanks. But if that's the case, then I have to wonder even more why it seems that so many British electricians today seem to think that compliance with BS7671 is mandatory.

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting, thanks. But if that's the case, then I have to wonder even more why it seems that so many British electricians today seem to think that compliance with BS7671 is mandatory.

I think that's because it effectively is mandatory for the great majority of them. Compliance with Part P obviously is a legal requirement and, for the vast majority of electricians, demonstrating compliance with BS7671 is certainly the easiest, and often the only, way that they could hope to demonstrate compliance with Part P.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

I think that's because it effectively is mandatory for the great majority of them. Compliance with Part P obviously is a legal requirement and, for the vast majority of electricians, demonstrating compliance with BS7671 is certainly the easiest, and often the only, way that they could hope to demonstrate compliance with Part P.

And possibly because strict compliance with BS7671 is a condition of their scheme membership. But that doesn't excuse those who tell people, either directly or indirectly, that BS7671 compliance is legally mandatory.

"BS7671 requires that new cable to be RCD protected, so I can't add that extra socket without also doubling the price by adding RCD protection as well. It's the law."

 

[JohnW2]

And possibly because strict compliance with BS7671 is a condition of their scheme membership. But that doesn't excuse those who tell people, either directly or indirectly, that BS7671 compliance is legally mandatory.

Agreed, but ...

"BS7671 requires that new cable to be RCD protected, so I can't add that extra socket without also doubling the price by adding RCD protection as well. It's the law."

... as I just wrote, for most electricians it is effectively 'the law'. The law requires them to comply with Part P, and most either couldn't, or couldn't be bothered to, attempt to argue that they had complied with that law even though they had not complied strictly with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

If they don't want to work to anything but the strict letter of BS7671 that's fine, but they still should not be telling customers that "it's the law" when it isn't (any more than some local authorities should be trying to do so either - last time I looked, admittedly a couple of years or more ago, there were still some which even had a note on their websites saying that wiring must comply with BS7671).

In my mind, if an electrician forces a customer into paying a whole load of extra money for work by telling him that he can't do X without also doing Y & Z because "it's the law," that's fraudulent.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would point out that (I think) a lot of them actually do believe the things they are telling customers.

The British are very good at doing what they are told without thinking why.
After all, soon we will have nothing but metal CUs.

 

[JohnW2]

In my mind, if an electrician forces a customer into paying a whole load of extra money for work by telling him that he can't do X without also doing Y & Z because "it's the law," that's fraudulent.

I suppose that's strictly true but, as I've been saying, if they (the ones I've been talking about) told the complete truth, it really wouldn't be materially different as far as the customer was concerned - i.e. something like....
"I cannot do X without also doing Y & Z because I then would not be able to demonstrate that I had complied with the law (and would not be certain that I had complied with the law)"

I suppose the customer could then 'shop around' for another electrician who was prepared to undertake work that wasn't fully compliant with BS7671 without caring about whether or not it was lawful (or whether or not they could demonstrate that it was lawful), but some customers might not be too keen on that, either!

This is really a lot of the reason behind my recent exchanges with BAS. To all intents and purposes, if a customer wants to be certain that work on their electrical installation has been undertaken lawfully, there really is little alternative to it being undertaken in full and strict compliance with BS7671. To my mind, that means that arguably 'silly' requirements of BS7671 are probably costing customers (particularly those 'vulnerable' ones whose interests BAS has been known to champion) very significant amounts of what, in common sense terms, is probably 'unnecessary' expenditure.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

if a customer wants to be certain that work on their electrical installation has been undertaken lawfully, there really is little alternative to it being undertaken in full and strict compliance with BS7671

How about any one of about two dozen other standards which the government-issued guidance also says are to be considered acceptable? We know that the approved documents are not law, but should anything ever get to court, I think it would be extremely difficult to argue that one of those other standards is not "reasonably safe" and thus legal but that work done to BS7671 is, given that it's the same document which says that work to BS7671 is to be considered as meeting the requirement!

And by extension, if we're looking at one specific thing, such as the RCD protection of cables buried less than 2 inches below the surface, do all of those other two dozen or so standards require it? I have no idea, but if not, then having cables not RCD protected is still, according to the government guidance, reasonably safe. So if the installation complies with BS7671 in all other respects, how could it not still be "reasonably safe" as far as Part P is concerned?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do think you two are being somewhat unreasonable.

Registered electricians have to work to 7671 as a condition of registration so if the work is notifiable then that is what they have to do.
For non-notifiable work it boils down to the same because you are still expected to for the reasons stated.

As for the thread subject, it would be very little work to put the lighting circuit on an RCD by one method or another.
The same for an additional socket or new length of cable.
Surely this is a reasonable and progressive way of achieving total RCD protection without huge expense all at once

You cannot sign a certificate stating that the work complies (with 7671) apart from that which does not - which complies to another standard.
I don't think the acceptance of other standards means you can mix and match.

 

[PBC_1966]

Registered electricians have to work to 7671 as a condition of registration so if the work is notifiable then that is what they have to do.
For non-notifiable work it boils down to the same because you are still expected to for the reasons stated.

I'm not disputing that, and I acknowledged above that it's a condition of their registration. But just because they will not do something which is not fully compliant with BS7671 does not make it acceptable to tell customers that it would be against the law.

I don't think the acceptance of other standards means you can mix and match.

As far as what is legally required is concerned, where is there anything which says you can't?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To my mind, that means that arguably 'silly' requirements of BS7671 are probably costing customers (particularly those 'vulnerable' ones whose interests BAS has been known to champion) very significant amounts of what, in common sense terms, is probably 'unnecessary' expenditure.

I see.

What you really object to is the requirement for buried cables yada yada to have RCD protection. You think it's a silly regulation. Fair enough - it's your right to think that.

But you do not have the right to call people who comply with the regulations, or who code a non-compliance as a non-compliance, laughable.