It probably could be.
But when you have to declare how you will ensure compliance with Part P of the Building Regulations, what will you say?
Why "No RCD protection on lighting circuit"?
- Thread starter bazme
- Start date
But when you have to declare how you will ensure compliance with Part P of the Building Regulations, what will you say?
Sponsored Links
Oh - be fair - not just us. Other English-speaking nations are as good, often better, at doing or believing what they are told without thinking why. Probably non English-speaking ones too, but I have not the language skills to observe the disconnects between what they are told and what the truth is.
Perhaps we should organise a sweepstake on how long it will be before some poor victim of a venal and/or stupid electrician fetches up here saying that he's been told it's the law that he has to have his CU replaced with a metal one. It will happen.
Perhaps I should have said "I don't think the acceptance of other standards means I can mix and match."
I suppose you may.
I think it is a silly regulation which requires a few percent of an installation to satisfies those requirements, whilst accepting that the great majority of the installation doesn't satisfy those requirements. Taking the examples we've mentioned, RCD protection of sockets or buried cables either is, or is not, deemed to be necessary for safety - and, IMO, sensible regulations would broadly reflect that. Just like my analogy of aircraft cushions - replacing two of them with ones now deemed to be required for safety reasons, leaving the other 248, now deemed to be 'unsafe', in place.
If I wrote that, it was unintentionally bad wording. What I thought I had said was that I regarded it as laughable that (because of the regulations) people were required to 'make a fuss' about the sort of issues I mentioned.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
I've never denied that and, as you are observing (I think!) it has been me who has been stressing that nearly all electricians have no choice but to fully comply with BS7671, even if not obliged to by scheme membership, or by the fact that the work is notifiable. I agree with BAS that 'regulations are regulations' and one cannot really justify anything other than full compliance with them - it is therefore the regulations, not those who are (literally or effectively) bound to work to them, that I have been commenting about.
In a literal sense, that's true, but I think that the marginal increase in safety achieved by RCD protecting a few feet of cable (e.g. with an RCD FCU) or installing an RCD socket in a house full of non-RCD-protected ones would be incredibly small - just as with aircraft cushions!
Kind Regards, John
What is the current guidance from NICEIC, NAPIT etc. regarding the coding of cables not RCD protected when carrying out a periodic inspection? I don't doubt there are some electricians out there now who would make it C1, but I would hope they're not in the majority. As there's no longer an equivalent of the old code 4, presumably it would be C3?
Interesting question - but an EICR is a totally different kettle of fish from 'new work'. There is (except in extreme situations!) nothing unlawful about having an electrical installation which does not comply with the current BS7671, but non-compliant 'new work' it might be (or might be argued to be) unlawful.
Kind Regards, John
How would they know?
My line of reasoning is this: If an inspection made under the auspices of the BS7671 standard reveals something which does not comply with the current regulations but is not serious enough to warrant any sort of code which deems it to be immediately or potentially dangerous, then it must be considered to be reasonably safe. So if, to continue with the same example, the general consensus of opinion is that no RCD protection on cables warrants nothing more than a C3 under the new system (only "Improvement recommended") then it must be considered that cables without RCD protection are still reasonably safe according to BS7671, even though not complying with the current rules.
So while cables installed today without RCD protection don't satisfy the requirements of BS7671, how can they not satisfy the "reasonable provision for safety" legal requirement if an inspection carried out to BS7671 results in a code which doesn't imply any danger?
Whatever standard is being used to assess whether or not something is "reasonably safe," it would be totally illogical to say that of two otherwise identical installations one is reasonably safe and the other is not simply because one was done today and the other yesterday, before the rules changed. Either both are reasonably safe according to whatever criteria are being used to assess safety, or both are not.
It's again this messy situation of things being regarded as safe enough to remain in service (but probably coded as a C3) but not safe enough to be newly installed. I suppose it is an attempt on their part to be sensible/practical. They could not realistically issue new regulations every few years which required virtually every installation in the country to be brought up to some new standard (either 'immediately', or within a year or three) - but it is a situation which is bound to result in the sort of 'anomalies' we are discussing.
We're really back to those aircraft cushions (or whatever parts) again! If the new requirement is addressing a sufficiently serious risk, the PTB will 'ground' all affected aircraft until the the new requirements have been satisfied. More commonly, they will require all aircraft to be brought up to the new standard within a specified period of time - but that is usually a year or two at most, not potentially decades (as is the case with electrical installations).
Kind Regards, John
How would an EICR inspector know when the short length of cable or additional socket (without RCD protection) was installed.
(S)he probably wouldn't - which is why I said that an EICR is a totally different kettle of fish from the actual undertaking of new work.
Kind Regards, John
But that's the point. Install that cable today without RCD protection and it's not to the current requirements of BS7671. But if somebody comes along tomorrow to do an inspection, with no idea of when the cable was installed, he can only code it based upon how he considers the non-compliance with the current rules, perhaps influenced by guidance from whatever organization he might belong to. If he has no reason to believe that it hasn't been there for 10 years and just gives it a C3, not implying any danger, then he must consider non-RCD cables to be reasonably safe. It would be absurd for him to change that coding to a more severe one if he knew before he started that it has only just been installed. Either it's reasonably safe or it isn't, by whatever criteria are being used to judge the relative safety. And if it's reasonably safe, then it meets the legal requirements of Part P regardless of the fact that it didn't meet the full requirements of BS7671 when installed.
Quite so.
Indeed. You're essentially saying exactly the same as I did, except that you are using the word 'absurd', whilst I said 'laughable'. It is, however, a little different from what we've been talking about.
As a matter of interest, what would you feel in the case of a "registered third-party-certifier' (there apparently now are a few!) who was, as required, undertaking an EICR within 5 days of completion of work that (s)he had been supervising? In that case, there would be no doubt that the work was 'new work' - and I can but presume that the work would 'fail' the inspection, such that (s)he would not issue a Compliance Certificate, if the work was not BS7671-compliant.
That can certainly be argued. However, it doesn't alter the fact that, with the regs as they are, someone could not honestly sign the declaration on an EIC or MWC for such 'new work' without documenting the deviation - and once one has done that, one has to be prepared to argue the compliance with part P (theoretically, although not in practice, in a Court of Law). I certainly can't, for example, see a 'third-party-certifier' wanting to get involved in that.
Kind Regards, John
Edit: crucial missing word added!
Last edited:
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
