BS7671 2006 vs 2008

[electronicsuk]

Thank you all again- some very interesting points!

To answer some specific points:

Andprk- Two RCD's, one lighting, one sockets. (and only a shaver socket in the bathroom, and a ringmain spur to the boiler, no shower)

Not very sensible on the part of the electrician, and perhaps indicative that he probably isn't conversant with the latest regulations or familiar with dual-RCD boards.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And if you assert that you have complied with P1 by having the work done by a qualified electrician who in turn asserts that his work complied with one of the standards which in the view of the Secretary of State will lead to compliance with the Building Regulations then any refusal on LABCs part to issue a completion notice can only be based on their inspection ands testing showing that the work did not comply and was not reasonably safe.

 

[riveralt]

Oh Dear, here we go again, BAS clouding the issue.

Failure to comply with the Building Regulations is a criminal offence and local authorities have the power to require the removal or alteration of completed work that does not comply with these requirements.

Indeed it is.

Would you like to testify on oath in a court of law that an installation done to the 16th is not reasonably safe?

Yes I would have no problem in testifying that BS7671 2001 was superceeded by BS7671 2008 on the 30th June 2008. This new installation, which requires LABC notification, was completed after this date and therefore should comply with the 17th edition.

But the issue here is not about whether an installation is reasonably safe it is whether or not the electrician has complied with the current regulations.

For all installations I am involved in any changes to that installation comply with the 17th edition to do otherwise would be foolish and actually invalidate both my compentent persons scheme membership and my public liability insurance.

Approved document P specifically states that the Secretary of State considers adherance to BS7671 17th edition as as means of acheiving this.

No it does not.

Once again you are wrong BAS, see approved document P page 7 under Performance section 01 and General section 02a

 

[Spark123]

The approved document P available as a download from http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf still refers to BS7671:2001 which is the 16th edn regs.
The law itself doesn't state which standard you have to work to, the only time BS7671 is refered to is in the definition of a special location.
The law does however require "P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury. "
Working to a standard such as BS7671 can be used to show towards how you took reasonable steps to achieve the above.

 

[nozspark]

STILL..

this installation could comply with the BS7671:2008 (17th ed)..

If it does (and it should, as all electrical work carried out after July 2008 should no matter what your electricians quaifications), get your electrician to fill out the forms I linked too earlier

BTW I'm with the NICEIC and we have up until the end of this year (2010) to pass our 17th edition qualifications

 

[riveralt]

The approved document P available as a download from http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf still refers to BS7671:2001 which is the 16th edn regs.

Yes it does, but it also goes on to say at page 7 02 (a), 'BS 7671 (2001)as amended', thus this document now refers to BS7671 (2008).

 

[Spark123]

I thought it meant BS7671:2001 including the amendments (1 & 2) which is the brown cover version which was issued in 2004, given the date of ADP is 2006.

 

[riveralt]

Red is the new Brown

 

[Spark123]

BS7671:2008 was a new standard. It isn't an amendment of BS7671:2001.

 

[Paul_C]

BS7671:2008 was a new standard. It isn't an amendment of BS7671:2001.

Agreed. So "BS7671:2001 as amended" can mean only up to the last amendment of the 16th edition, not the 17th edition which is the new standard, BS7671:2008.

Would you like to testify on oath in a court of law that an installation done to the 16th is not reasonably safe?

Yes I would have no problem in testifying that BS7671 2001 was superceeded by BS7671 2008 on the 30th June 2008.

That BS7671:2001 was superseded by BS7671:2008 is not in question. But who could possibly argue that BS7671:2001 as amended is not "reasonable provision" for safety, which is what the law requires?

But the issue here is not about whether an installation is reasonably safe it is whether or not the electrician has complied with the current regulations.

Sorry, but as far the original poster is concerned, surely whether the installation is "reasonably safe" most certainly is the issue, because that's all that the building regulations demand.

Whether NICEIC or any other scheme operator requires its members to work to the current standard is really another matter.

 

[riveralt]

BS7671:2008 was a new standard. It isn't an amendment of BS7671:2001.

Agreed. So "BS7671:2001 as amended" can mean only up to the last amendment of the 16th edition, not the 17th edition which is the new standard, BS7671:2008.

Would you like to testify on oath in a court of law that an installation done to the 16th is not reasonably safe?

Yes I would have no problem in testifying that BS7671 2001 was superceeded by BS7671 2008 on the 30th June 2008.

That BS7671:2001 was superseded by BS7671:2008 is not in question. But who could possibly argue that BS7671:2001 as amended is not "reasonable provision" for safety, which is what the law requires?

But the issue here is not about whether an installation is reasonably safe it is whether or not the electrician has complied with the current regulations.

Sorry, but as far the original poster is concerned, surely whether the installation is "reasonably safe" most certainly is the issue, because that's all that the building regulations demand.

Whether NICEIC or any other scheme operator requires its members to work to the current standard is really another matter.

I'm sorry, but BS7671 (2008) is now the required standard for Part P of the building regulations. Try fitting a new electric shower without ensuring that the circuit has additional protection - see what the LABC would say. Would the original op be happy not to have additional protection on his shower circuit as per the 16th edition

I do not believe anyone is saying that BS7671 (2001) was less than safe, indeed they state that installations installed under the old regulations that don't meet the current regulations are not necessarily deemed unsafe or need upgrading.

Nevertheless the IET must believe that BS7671 (2001) interpretation of 'reasonable provision for safety' fell below the new required standard, otherwise they would not have introduced BS7671 (2008) and that level of safety has been increased as a result

At the end of the day, the LABC, the competent person scheme operators and the Government are using the current BS7671 to interpret the requirements of Part P. Whether or not you agree with this is neither here nor there. Any challenges to this belief can be taken in civil or criminal court - I do not see any challenges.

Many people accessing this site do not have specific knowledge of electrical installations and they seek advice. Any advice given should reflect the current requirements of Part P and BS7671 (2008)

 

[Spark123]

Please can you point out where the Law says you must comply with BS7671:2008 to comply with part p of the building regulations?
I'm not saying that complying with them is a bad thing - it is probably the most adopted method aiming towards compliance with P1 in the building regs, just that the Law doesn't require you to use them and you may, if you wish to, satisfy P1 in another way such as following another EEA member states equivalent.

At the end of the day, the LABC, the competent person scheme operators and the Government are using the current BS7671 to interpret the requirements of Part P.

The government will hopefully one day get around to updating the Law which still uses the 16th edn regs in it's definition of a special location.

 

[Paul_C]

I'm sorry, but BS7671 (2008) is now the required standard for Part P of the building regulations.

No, it isn't. And neither was BS7671:2001 as amended before it. Part P of the building regulations doesn't require the following of any particular standard, just "reasonable provision" for safety.

The only reference to BS7671 in the actual building regulations is for the definition of a special location. All other official references are in the Approved Document, which is not law - And even if it was, it specifically states that other standards are to be considered acceptable. So to say that BS7671:2008 is the required standard for Part P simply isn't true.

Try fitting a new electric shower without ensuring that the circuit has additional protection - see what the LABC would say.

As numerous threads make clear, what some LABC inspectors try to enforce is vastly different from what the law actually requires.

Would the original op be happy not to have additional protection on his shower circuit as per the 16th edition

I do not believe anyone is saying that BS7671 (2001) was less than safe, indeed they state that installations installed under the old regulations that don't meet the current regulations are not necessarily deemed unsafe or need upgrading.

So if they are not unsafe in any way, they meet the building regs. requirement of reasonable provision for safety.

Nevertheless the IET must believe that BS7671 (2001) interpretation of 'reasonable provision for safety' fell below the new required standard, otherwise they would not have introduced BS7671 (2008) and that level of safety has been increased as a result

What BS7671 stipulates as the current standard and what is reasonable provision for safety under Part P are not the same thing though. And if every time a new edition of BS7671 is published that is supposed to mean that the previous edition is now considered not to be reasonable safety provision, why is there the option of a code 4 for inspections?

Many people accessing this site do not have specific knowledge of electrical installations and they seek advice. Any advice given should reflect the current requirements of Part P and BS7671 (2008)

When the advice being sought is regarding the legal requirements of the building regulations and any ramifications thereof, it's misleading to be suggesting that the law requires wiring to comply fully with the 17th edition when that simply isn't so.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh Dear, here we go again, BAS clouding the issue.

Oh here we go again with someone either being unable to read and understand written English, or refusing to accept what it says because he doesn't want it to say what it says.

Yes I would have no problem in testifying that BS7671 2001 was superceeded by BS7671 2008 on the 30th June 2008.

I'm sure you wouldn't, but I'm afraid that is not an answer to the question I asked, and why on earth you thought that you would get away with that transparent evasion beggars belief.

Would you like to testify on oath in a court of law that an installation done to the 16th is not reasonably safe?

This new installation, which requires LABC notification, was completed after this date and therefore should comply with the 17th edition.

"Should" is a defensible position, but there is no "must".

But the issue here is not about whether an installation is reasonably safe it is whether or not the electrician has complied with the current regulations.

That is exactly what the issue is, because being reasonably safe is what the law requires, not being done to the latest version of the Wiring Regulations.

For all installations I am involved in any changes to that installation comply with the 17th edition to do otherwise would be foolish and actually invalidate both my compentent persons scheme membership and my public liability insurance.

Maybe it would, but it would not contravene the Building Regulations. Why are you unable to understand that?

Once again you are wrong BAS, see approved document P page 7 under Performance section 01 and General section 02a

"Performance
0.1 In the Secretary of State’s view, the
requirements will be met by adherence to the
‘Fundamental Principles’ for achieving safety given
in BS 7671:2001 Chapter 13. To achieve these
requirements electrical installations must be:

a...."

"General
0.2 A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the body
of BS 7671:2001 as amended or in an
equivalent standard approved by a member
of the EEA; and..."

Please explain how, when you say that those sections refer to BS 7671:2008, and I say they do not, I am "wrong" when they clearly do not?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm sorry, but BS7671 (2008) is now the required standard for Part P of the building regulations.

If you believe that then you must surely be able to provide a link to the latest Statutory Instrument which makes it so.

Please do that.

Try fitting a new electric shower without ensuring that the circuit has additional protection - see what the LABC would say.

They might say all sorts of things. If the person doing the work was prepared to push things hard enough would they say, on oath in a court of law, that it was not reasonably safe?

Would the original op be happy not to have additional protection on his shower circuit as per the 16th edition

IHNI, but that's irrelevant, as the law does not concern itself with that.

I do not believe anyone is saying that BS7671 (2001) was less than safe, indeed they state that installations installed under the old regulations that don't meet the current regulations are not necessarily deemed unsafe or need upgrading.

But you are acting as if you do believe that working to BS 7671:2001(2004) does not result in something which is reasonably safe.

Will you please explain this apparent contradiction?

Nevertheless the IET must believe that BS7671 (2001) interpretation of 'reasonable provision for safety' fell below the new required standard, otherwise they would not have introduced BS7671 (2008) and that level of safety has been increased as a result

Does the increase make the old standard no longer reasonably safe?

At the end of the day, the LABC, the competent person scheme operators and the Government are using the current BS7671 to interpret the requirements of Part P.

Indeed they are, but their actions do not magically bring about a change to the law, nor a rewording of the official guidance.

Whether or not you agree with this is neither here nor there. Any challenges to this belief can be taken in civil or criminal court - I do not see any challenges.

Indeed not, but that does not make you right.

Many people accessing this site do not have specific knowledge of electrical installations and they seek advice. Any advice given should reflect the current requirements of Part P and BS7671 (2008)

The current requirements of Part P are:

P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the
design and installation of electrical installations
in order to protect persons operating,
maintaining or altering the installations from
fire or injury.

Of course people should be advised that the simplest and most practical way to do that is to work to BS 7671:2008, but that does not mean that they should be told that they must do that.

If you want to lie to people because you cannot be bothered to explain things properly, or because you have a patronising belief that they cannot be trusted with the truth then please become a plumber and take yourself off to their forum, where such attitudes and behaviour are regarded as acceptable.