17th stuff, 3rd time lucky

[securespark]

I do agree that over the years, the regs have been less instruction and more interpretation.

However, an instruction manual is not necessarily a good idea, either.

Look at the 14th Ed. It was criticised heavily when published as being a "Haynes" type manual for wiring, with explicit instruction about exactly how to install electrical wiring & accessories.

Since then, there has been less & less explicit directions & more & more interpretation required.

A very good example of this is the split-load board (either 16th or 17th).

Manufacturers took their own interpretation of the regulations: it quite obviously does not comply with all the regulations, but the manufacturers wanted to market a cheap means of complying with as many as possible of the regs.

 

[spongsdad]

I write merely as an occasional DIYer. All this business about conforming to 17th edition washes way above my head. May I ask a simple question? If I asked any of you professionals to install a new consumer unit in my property, would you be prepared to do it if the replacement CU provided an enhanced degree of safety even though it didn't meet 17th edition specs? If the answer is "No", what would your explanation be? I suspect that more than 90% of UK properties in the don't even conform to 15th edition , never mind 17th. Maybe the pragmatic view would be that if replacement of a CU provided improved safety, then that would be an improvement which could be justified The trouble with rigid regulations is that people defer or even cancel improvements because they cannot have them carried out incrementally and it finishes up with you guys recommending a complete rewire which many will baulk at on the grounds of cost.
To BAS; I admire the fact that you ask questions which deserve real answers.. I think you are a realist rather than being pedantic.

 

[securespark]

I take your point about making an installation safer.

I think it's the ECA who say something like " as long as you don't make the installation any less safe than it was before you arrived..."

However, professional sparks have to adhere to the regulations (much as we may disagree with how to interpret them). For example, much as I would like to, I cannot, under my company's procedures, replace a consumer unit unless PEB's are in place & sized according to 7671:2008.

Also, if rubber cabling is present or if there are no cpc's in the lighting circuits (or both), I would have to decline.

 

[FingRinal]

If I asked any of you professionals to install a new consumer unit in my property, would you be prepared to do it if the replacement CU provided an enhanced degree of safety even though it didn't meet 17th edition specs? If the answer is "No", what would your explanation be?

Let's assume that we are talking about a '17th' CU - one which encompasses by one means or another RCD protection for all circuits. Let's assume that your existing installation is an old Wylex BS3036 rewireable fusewire board, with no cpc in lights, no main protective bonding and no supplementary bonding. It complies with the 13th Edition from 1963. Insulation resistance is very good between all conductors.

BAS says that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember). You have enhanced safety on the RCD protected circuits only.

A '17th' CU will give you RCD protection for all circuits. Main protective bonding will be installed and this will save having to have suppplementary bonding in the bathroom. A professional will replace the meter tails and earthing conductor as well. A proper job - not a cheap lash up.

A third way might be that you insist on living with a less safe installation (??) no matter what. In which case you could pay someone cash or do it yourself. What you can't expect is for a professional electrician to put his liability and reputation on the line just because you insist on doing it your way.

Another justification might be that you have decided to employ the services of an electrician who is a member of Elecsa, NAPIT, ECA, NICIEC, BSI and you have done so for a reason - you have faith in their comittment to standards and safety. As such, you can't complain when their services include methods which insist on higher standards of working practices and safety than you care for.

There is an argument for 'continued improvement'. The client brings the installation up to scratch in stages as and when they can afford it. Unless the client has a good relationship with an electrician, an electriain might see through right through it and decline the work.

So, why will the professional eletrician insist on an all-RCD protected installation? Unless he can prove otherwise, he will assume that all your circuit cables require RCD protection for impact protection. The cheapest option which will be suitable for the majority of domestic installations will be a dual RCD CU - the so called '17th Ed. Compliant CU'. If he can prove otherwise, he might opt for another approach. The cost difference is a few tens of pounds in parts and a tad more testing - so I can't see what justifiction there is for not doing it.

It is not your right to have a professional electrician do what you want. Rather than moan about this, perhaps it should be welcomed in a world in which the general consensus of tradesmen is that they are all bodge job, rip off, rogue traders.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS seems we have got mixed up between replace and add. I though you were adding a second lamp in a bathroom not replacing and you are right no difference in replacing one lamp to replacing two lamps.
There is of course a difference between adding an extra lamp to replacing a lamp.
Eric

No - you were right - I was comparing the two - replacing and adding.

I'm looking for logic and consistency - if what you think is a requirement isn't logical, or is inconsistent in its application or need then either you've got it wrong or the stated requirement is flawed.

A light is not like a socket - it is not the light which requires RCD protection, it is the circuit - either because it's in the bathroom or because it has cables less than 50mm deep etc.

If you were to look at such a circuit, and were asked whether it complies with the 17th edition you would say "no".

It's no if you do nothing to it, it's no if you replace the light with a new one, it's no if you replace the light with 2 new ones and it's no if you add a light or lights.

So what's special about adding a light? You're not introducing a new circuit into a special location and you're not introducing new cable at less than 50mm etc., so if it's OK to leave it without RCD protection if you're replacing a light why is it not OK to leave it if you add a light?

What's the electrical engineering or safety logic which says that if replace the existing light with a luminaire containing 4 GU10 lampholders you don't have to add an RCD but if you replace it with 4 individual GU10s you do have to?

It's no more expensive to add an RCD when just changing the light than if adding more.

It's no more disruptive to add an RCD when just changing the light.

It's no more inconvenient to add an RCD when just changing the light.

The before and after safety comparison is no different when just changing the light.

There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.

Given all this, what's the logical and consistent reason for saying that if you change a light then you're in compliance with the regulations if you leave the circuit without an RCD, but if you add a light and leave the rest unchanged you're not in compliance?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS says that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember).

Where?

 

[FingRinal]

Where?

 

[FingRinal]

There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.

131.8 for the umpteenth time (and to prevent a nit-pick, we are talking about a like for like replacement). Of course if by like fr like we mean a Class 1 replacement for a broken Class 1 light on a circuit without a cpc, then there is a problem - in which case the job should be refused or else a Class II light should be used.

Given all this, what's the logical and consistent reason for saying that if you change a light then you're in compliance with the regulations if you leave the circuit without an RCD, but if you add a light and leave the rest unchanged you're not in compliance?

131.8 for the umpteenth and first time

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Where?

FR - why do you persist in saying things about me that aren't true?

Surely if you want to show that what you say is true then when I ask you "where?" you should show us where, not just respond with 64 identical smileys?

There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.

131.8 for the umpteenth time

131.8 does not discriminate between alterations and additions - it classes them as one in terms of what you have to do to ensure their safety.

(and to prevent a nit-pick, we are talking about a like for like replacement). Of course if by like fr like we mean a Class 1 replacement for a broken Class 1 light on a circuit without a cpc, then there is a problem - in which case the job should be refused or else a Class II light should be used.

Let's assume we don't because that's a separate issue. 131.8 does not mention any special dispensations for "like for like" - it says "No alteration or addition..."

Given all this, what's the logical and consistent reason for saying that if you change a light then you're in compliance with the regulations if you leave the circuit without an RCD, but if you add a light and leave the rest unchanged you're not in compliance?

131.8 for the umpteenth and first time

We're not talking about changing the circuit loading such that tails or cable size or protective devices need changing.

We're not talking about introducing Class I accessories where there were previously none.

We're not talking about adding new cabling concealed in a wall or partition at a depth of less than 50mm without earthed mechanical protection.

We're not talking about introducing a new circuit to a special location.

In what way does 131.8 mean that if you replace a 100W GLS luminaire with a luminaire containing 2x50W GU10 you do not have to add RCD protection to the circuit but if you replace it with 2 individual GU10 luminaires you do?

 

[FingRinal]

FR - why do you persist in saying things about me that aren't true?

Surely if you want to show that what you say is true then when I ask you "where?" you should show us where, not just respond with 64 identical smileys?

How many times?

131.8 does not discriminate between alterations and additions - it classes them as one in terms of what you have to do to ensure their safety.

Then what are you blithering on about? How many times are you going to change your mind? I've lost count.

131.8 does not mention any special dispensations for "like for like" - it says "No alteration or addition..."

Let's assume there are no other defects (as you like to assume things)...
Is a like for like replacement an addition - No.
Is a like for like replacement an alteration - No.

Given all this, what's the logical and consistent reason for saying that if you change a light then you're in compliance with the regulations if you leave the circuit without an RCD, but if you add a light and leave the rest unchanged you're not in compliance?

We're not talking about changing the circuit loading such that tails or cable size or protective devices need changing.

We're not talking about introducing Class I accessories where there were previously none.

We're not talking about adding new cabling concealed in a wall or partition at a depth of less than 50mm without earthed mechanical protection.

We're not talking about introducing a new circuit to a special location.

In what way does 131.8 mean that if you replace a 100W GLS luminaire with a luminaire containing 2x50W GU10 you do not have to add RCD protection to the circuit but if you replace it with 2 individual GU10 luminaires you do?

Then what the heck are you talking about?

Oh please, please please tell what you are talking about so we can just give the answer that suits your obsessive compulsive brain; that allows you to get some sleep, move on to making the tea or what have you that consitutes a normal everyday life.

Note: BAS7671 doesn't exist in real life.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

FR - why do you persist in saying things about me that aren't true?

FR - why do you persist in telling lies?

Surely if you want to show that what you say is true then when I ask you "where?" you should show us where, not just respond with 64 identical smileys?

How many times?

64 - what's the matter, can't you count?

131.8 does not discriminate between alterations and additions - it classes them as one in terms of what you have to do to ensure their safety.

Then what are you blithering on about? How many times are you going to change your mind? I've lost count.

I've not changed my mind once - what I said there was exactly the same as what I said earlier.

There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.

Let's assume there are no other defects (as you like to assume things)...

It's the only way to get you to give a non-evasive answer to a simple and straightforward question...

Is a like for like replacement an alteration - No.

According to my dictionary it is.

Then what the heck are you talking about?

An existing lighting circuit which does not have the RCD protection required by the 17th, but other than that has no faults, and is part of an installation which has no other related faults.

On which we are either going to replace a luminaire or add a luminaire.

You and eric claim that the former allows you to leave the circuit non-compliant with the 17th but the latter does not.

I'm interested in a logical and consistent reason why.

 

[FingRinal]

FR - why do you persist in saying things about me that aren't true?

FR - why do you persist in telling lies?

Surely if you want to show that what you say is true then when I ask you "where?" you should show us where, not just respond with 64 identical smileys?

How many times?

64 - what's the matter, can't you count?

Let me re-phrase 'how many times are you going to bang on about the same rubbish?

131.8 does not discriminate between alterations and additions - it classes them as one in terms of what you have to do to ensure their safety.

Then what are you blithering on about? How many times are you going to change your mind? I've lost count.

I've not changed my mind once - what I said there was exactly the same as what I said earlier. There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.

There probably isn't in BAS7671...who cares ?

You and eric claim that the former allows you to leave the circuit non-compliant with the 17th but the latter does not.

I'm interested in a logical and consistent reason why.

Then first learn how to understand and apply logic and consistency.

 

[Pensdown]

Manufacturers took their own interpretation of the regulations: it quite obviously does not comply with all the regulations, but the manufacturers wanted to market a cheap means of complying with as many as possible of the regs.

I think you've made a very good point.

Historically, the old school domestic sparks didn't really know too much about the detail of the regs and IMO the manufactures took advantage of this. On behalf of the old school house bashers the manufactures designed "bespoke" products which were marketed as meeting certain regs and they sold by the bucket load.

But IMO things should start to change because we now have a new breed of sparks coming into the domestic market. They seem to have a much better understanding of the regs and they can think for themselves.

We also now have forums like this which over time should replace the Friday night pub college where most of the old school house bashers learnt the trade.

 

[bongos]

It is not your right to have a professional electrician do what you want. Rather than moan about this, perhaps it should be welcomed in a world in which the general consensus of tradesmen is that they are all bodge job, rip off, rogue traders.

I understand where you are coming from with this point. But as oharaf says in an earlier post, if someone is unable to pay for the entire job to be completed up to the 17th then they may simply not bother getting it upgraded at all. I appreciate where the regs are coming from but I think that there should be some sort of happy medium for both customer and spark where the spark is still happy to sign off their design as safe. At the end of the day without any customers then there would be no work for sparks.

Surely improving an old, outdated and dangerous supply is better than doing nothng at all even if not bringing it upto 17th?

As a keen DIYer with a basic understanding of electrics I am happy to be crucified

 

[ban-all-sheds]

FR - why do you persist in saying things about me that aren't true?

FR - why do you persist in telling lies?

Surely if you want to show that what you say is true then when I ask you "where?" you should show us where, not just respond with 64 identical smileys?

How many times?

64 - what's the matter, can't you count?

Let me re-phrase 'how many times are you going to bang on about the same rubbish?

Until you stop telling lies.

131.8 does not discriminate between alterations and additions - it classes them as one in terms of what you have to do to ensure their safety.

Then what are you blithering on about? How many times are you going to change your mind? I've lost count.

I've not changed my mind once - what I said there was exactly the same as what I said earlier. There is no regulation (AFAIK) which discriminates between changing a light and adding one - 131.8 for example groups alterations and additions together.

There probably isn't in BAS7671...who cares ?

If there is one in BS 7671:2008 which supports your position will you tell us what it is?

Simple question - simple answer - will you - yes or no?

You and eric claim that the former allows you to leave the circuit non-compliant with the 17th but the latter does not.

I'm interested in a logical and consistent reason why.

Then first learn how to understand and apply logic and consistency.

If I ask you to show me how by example of a logical and consistent interpretation of a regulation or regulations which you believe leads to the position you take, will you? Or will you continue to evade all such questions and fail to contribute anything constructive to this topic?