17th complying

[ebee]

If and I say If his interpretation of the regs and certifying is correct as it stands them I am sure that it is not what the writers of the regs intended.
I believe some clarifications are comming in the near future and hopefully this issue might be one of them.

Until such time I`m erring on the side of common sense and using the "add to a ccct requires the addition only to be to current regs" similarly say a shower in a bathroom then the shower will be to the regs but any existing cct not nessacarily uprated (Supp bonding carried out though).

Even before the economic downturn the 17th has caused problems with contractors implementing them re costs to customers but this would kill trade stone dead - unfortunately we work in the real world

 

[tSpark]

IMO he's barking mad.

I'd agree, and he also implys that installations, to an earlier edition of the regs would be unsafe. But er..... What about about the statement (aint to sure about the wording but something like) 'non-compliance of an existing installation to BS7671 : 2008 amended to 2008, but to an earlier edition does not imply that the installation is not safe'

If you had to bring everything upto compliance then you would'nt be able to touch anything without rewires, upgrading of all earthing arrangements, new consumer units etc etc.

you just have to cover the work, you do, making sure thats compliant.
If you extend a ring main, do you strip the plaster work off every wall to make sure the existing cables are run in safe zones??? no. Thats because your only certifying your work as compliant.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you extend a ring main, do you strip the plaster work off every wall to make sure the existing cables are run in safe zones??? no. Thats because your only certifying your work as compliant.

That's not what Mark Coles says.

 

[holmslaw]

..