BS7671 2006 vs 2008

[ban-all-sheds]

I found that the way you responded to that was with a tone of condescention, is that not so? (thinks - dead parott, deceased, it is an ex-parott) Although im sure that that wasn't your intention, as usual

You're right.

These questions were posed due to the position of some that bs7671 16th ed (amended or not) is a different animal to BS7671 17th edition.

It is. And the introduction which you invited DJB to read actually says that it replaces the 16th edition, not that it it's an amendment to it.

What do you think about my thought that it was a deliberate attempt by the author to write the document in such a way as to dispense with the necessity of automatically having to re-writing the document simply due to an update to its own references?

I think that if that was their intention it would have been so easy, and blindingly obvious, to write

"A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the body
of the Edition of BS 7671 current at the time of
carrying out the work or in an
equivalent standard approved by a member
of the EEA..."

that it seems incredible that they wouldn't have done that if that was their intention.

Not sure why you wrote this, it doesn't answer anything, merely poses a similar question but from a different viewpoint. Do you care to offer an answer?

An answer to what? "If there are any electricians-come-have-a-go lawyers who have actually put their money where there mouth is and persued their claim in court that installing wiring systems to an obsolete regulations was ok, i would love to hear from them!" is not a question, it is a statement, as was mine.

why do you think i invited the OP to look at the introduction on page.4?

I don't know why you did that.

You want to tell him to let the council bully him into accepting their unlawful...position

wrong

I guess I must have misinterpreted all your talk of taking the path of least resistance and going for an easy life and all that melodramatic stuff about going out on a limb, shiny-suited sharks and picking the bones out of legal carnage as suggesting that he should just let the council bully him into submission as that would be the easiest thing to do.

I would advise the OP to take the path of least resistance

The path of least resistance is allowing the council to bully him into acceding to their unlawful demands.

nobody is suggesting he hold his butt cheeks open for the council to 'do him like a gud'un', but why fight a battle where avoiding it may cost less, take less time and give a less of a headache?

That's for him to decide, but IMO a few letters/phone calls and a bit of agitation through his councillor is worth a shot.

nope, im asking you whether you could ask your questions with less negatives within them?.

I've looked back at what I've written, and I can't see anything with superfluous negatives in, so unless you can highlight something where you consider there are then there's nothing I can do.

I live 100+ miles from Winchester, why would i bother to ask them anything?

Because they are the ones acting as if they can prove something not safe, and you are the one concerned about that concept.

I personally have no problem in understanding what you have written, i just think it could be improved to give a greater degree of clarity by not asking to prove negatives.

I did keep asking riveralt if he would be prepared to testify that something was not reasonably safe, but that's because that is what he believes, and that's what a council would have to do. The law requires the work to be reasonably safe, so to refuse a certificate must mean they believe it to not be reasonably safe, and they must believe that they could prove that if called upon to do so.

Were you not creating explainatory truth tables to enlighten Coljack?
I thought you were?

I was, but the subject matter was entirely of his choosing.

 

[deejaybee101]

HI BAS,

If the bottom line is that I will have to pay for a part P self-cert qualified sparky to make some mods to the current installation, then I don't see that I've got that much to lose by a bit of reasoned agitation with both BC and their sub-con (clearly while attempting to keep them both on side, afterall I'm sure that life could be made most awkward for me if they so desired)

As I understand it, the nub of your argument is that the statutory requirement is simply met by an installation of reasonable safety (and "A way to ensure that is to follow BS7671:2001 as amended yada yada"), is that correct?

Do you have a reference for the statutory requirement that could be quoted if required?

Thanks again for your help!

Kind regards,

djb

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[LiamPope]

If you think the installation does in fact comply with the 17th, which seems likely, then I'd try your luck first with resubmitting the certs as someone above suggested - 17th edition certs with 2008 written as the edition worked too, and a copy of the sparks quals. They're just ticking boxes and covering their own arses at the end of the day, and that will be the easiest option for them as well as you.

Liam

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I wouldn't bet on it! I spoke to my local authority about this and what they told me, in summary, was as follows:

What they told you was, I'm afraid, slightly economical, truth-wise.

When Part P came into force, local authorities were not provided with any time, additional training, headcount or test equipment, nor given any budget to obtain any of these,

1) The consultation document for Part P was issued in May 2002, and went to many councils and bodies such as District Surveyors associations, the Local Government Association, LABC Services, the National Association of Local Councils.....

2) The results of the consultation were published in September 2002.

3) The first Part P amendment to the Building Regulations was made on 13th July 2004, and laid before Parliament on 22nd of July 2004, and came into force on January 1st, 2005.

They knew all about it 2½ years before it came into force.

which is why they are so very reluctant to accept Building Notices for electrical work unless the work is being done by a qualified electrician who can issue the appropriate certs.

I'm sure they are, and I have sympathy for the problems they face because of budget and training constraints.

But "can't afford it" is never accepted as a defence when a citizen is in court charged with wrongdoing, and we should not accept local councils acting outside the law and imposing unlawful conditions on people. Their lack of ability to discharge their legal responsibilities is their problem, not that of people notifying work and acting in full compliance with the law and in full accordance with official government advice.

They mostly didn't/don't have anyone with any electrical qualifications or training or test equipment, so if they have to inspect/test they have to sub it out - but they have no budget for that either.

Acting unlawfully is not the answer to that problem.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If the bottom line is that I will have to pay for a part P self-cert qualified sparky to make some mods to the current installation, then I don't see that I've got that much to lose by a bit of reasoned agitation with both BC and their sub-con (clearly while attempting to keep them both on side, afterall I'm sure that life could be made most awkward for me if they so desired)

I don't see how they can make life awkward - if what you've told us is correct then you have done nothing wrong.

As I understand it, the nub of your argument is that the statutory requirement is simply met by an installation of reasonable safety (and "A way to ensure that is to follow BS7671:2001 as amended yada yada"), is that correct?

Yup.

Do you have a reference for the statutory requirement that could be quoted if required?

The Building Regulations.


Approved Document P

 

[Paul_C]

As you know, 50mA is more than enough to kill someone.

So is 30mA. RCD protection at the 30mA level might increase safety somewhat, but it's not the complete safeguard against electrocution that many people seem to have been led to believe.

Under the 16th edition a 8.5kw shower has the capacity to generate a lethal 36 amps under short circuit conditions. When, the circuit has additional protection that capacity is limited to 30mA for less than 20ms. You will still get a belt but it should not kill you.

Under short circuit conditions the current will be a lot more than 36A. But as far as electric shock is concerned, the human body is not a short circuit and the current which actually flows will depend upon the overall resistance. The presence of a 30mA RCD will not limit the shock current to 30mA - It will just ensure that any current over 30mA which does flow through the body will do so for a very short time.

So yes I would state in court, on oath, that the 17th edition is more safe than the 16th edition.

That may be the case. But that doesn't make the 16th edition any less safe now than it was when it was the current standard just over two years ago.

I would also say that the 17th edition is the current standard that must be used for all new installations, additions or alterations.

But there is nothing in law to say it must be used. There has never been anything in law to say that any edition of BS7671 must be used.

 

[Paul_C]

why is it in its seventeenth edition of the 'BS7671' and not the first edition of BS7671:2008 ?

Because it is a new edition of BS 7671. It is the 17th such edition. It is the 2008 edition of BS 7161.

In the same way as the "Wiring Regs." didn't revert to first edition every time the full name changed in the past.

There haven't actually been 17 editions of BS7671, because the Wiring Regs. didn't become BS7671 until the 16th edition. BS7671:2008 just happens to be the 17th edition of what started out as the "Rules & Regulations for the Prevention of Fire Risks arising from Electric Lighting" in 1882, and went through two other names before settling on the long-standing "Regulations for the Electrical Equipment of Buildings" with the 8th edition in 1924.

All of which is pretty much academic anyway, since there is no specific legal requirement to follow BS7671 at all. The official Approved Documents even say so.

I think as a start I will write LABC a nice letter, pointing out that really only a physical inspection can determine the validity of the installation with regards to 2008 regs, and I would be happy to host them for an inspection and testing as they see fit

Whatever you do, don't let them bully you into paying again for a third-party inspection. They've already taken a fee from you, and it's up to them to pay for any inspection out of that fee if they want it done. Refer them to the ODPM circular quoted earlier if necessary.

But "can't afford it" is never accepted as a defence when a citizen is in court charged with wrongdoing, and we should not accept local councils acting outside the law and imposing unlawful conditions on people. Their lack of ability to discharge their legal responsibilities is their problem, not that of people notifying work and acting in full compliance with the law and in full accordance with official government advice.

Quite so. Try using "can't afford it" as a defense for not paying council tax and see if you just get a reply of "Oh, that's fine, we understand perfectly."

They'll just quote whatever act and regulations apply and if you don't fall into a legal exemption from paying or getting a discount, their response will be, effectively, "Too bad, now pay up or else."

So there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't do the same.

 

[riveralt]

As you know, 50mA is more than enough to kill someone.

So is 30mA. RCD protection at the 30mA level might increase safety somewhat, but it's not the complete safeguard against electrocution that many people seem to have been led to believe.

Under the 16th edition a 8.5kw shower has the capacity to generate a lethal 36 amps under short circuit conditions. When, the circuit has additional protection that capacity is limited to 30mA for less than 20ms. You will still get a belt but it should not kill you.

Under short circuit conditions the current will be a lot more than 36A. But as far as electric shock is concerned, the human body is not a short circuit and the current which actually flows will depend upon the overall resistance. The presence of a 30mA RCD will not limit the shock current to 30mA - It will just ensure that any current over 30mA which does flow through the body will do so for a very short time.

So yes I would state in court, on oath, that the 17th edition is more safe than the 16th edition.

That may be the case. But that doesn't make the 16th edition any less safe now than it was when it was the current standard just over two years ago.

I would also say that the 17th edition is the current standard that must be used for all new installations, additions or alterations.

But there is nothing in law to say it must be used. There has never been anything in law to say that any edition of BS7671 must be used.

RCD - I never said it was a complete safeguard (every human body is a different size, shape and the point of entry is important). - but its a better to have them than not - since the RCD will minimise the amount of current and time you are exposed to that current.

Short circuit conditions more current would flow: Not sure your right here remember I was talking about additional protection whose purpose is to minimise injuries to human and life stock.

General opinon is that human body has a resistance of between 300 and 1000 ohms. Assume worst case of 300 ohms and direct contact then 766mA will flow if the human causes the short circuit - still enough to kill you but not as high as you have stated.

Nothing in law to say that BS7671 (2008) must be used.

Well actually the Health and Safety at Work Act does require that the current standard of BS7671 (2008) is used when it comes to Electrical Safety. And we are all covered by this Act.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/standards.htm

Sitting in the dock saying that the 16th edition isn't any less safe now than it was when it was the current standard sound good in principle.

But the only question the prosecution will ask is, did you follow the requirements of the 17th edition?

If the answer is No, remember it is a potential £5000 fine for each breach of the Act, never mind jail time.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I found that the way you responded to that was with a tone of condescention, is that not so? (thinks - dead parott, deceased, it is an ex-parott) Although im sure that that wasn't your intention, as usual

You're right.

Thought i would be

These questions were posed due to the position of some that bs7671 16th ed (amended or not) is a different animal to BS7671 17th edition.

It is. And the introduction which you invited DJB to read actually says that it replaces the 16th edition, not that it it's an amendment to it.

does it actually? On page4, where? Anyway, thats not what i was getting at and it seems as thought the OP is interested to find out, so im happy about that.

What do you think about my thought that it was a deliberate attempt by the author to write the document in such a way as to dispense with the necessity of automatically having to re-writing the document simply due to an update to its own references?

I think that if that was their intention it would have been so easy, and blindingly obvious, to write

"A way of satisfying the fundamental
principles would be to follow:
a. the technical rules described in the body
of the Edition of BS 7671 current at the time of
carrying out the work or in an
equivalent standard approved by a member
of the EEA..."

that it seems incredible that they wouldn't have done that if that was their intention.

Is that your script? What is it in place of? What do you think to my question about the intention of the Author, a nice piece of writing to cover his rs or a dullard who should not have been allowed to publish the drivel?

Not sure why you wrote this, it doesn't answer anything, merely poses a similar question but from a different viewpoint. Do you care to offer an answer?

An answer to what? "If there are any electricians-come-have-a-go lawyers who have actually put their money where there mouth is and persued their claim in court that installing wiring systems to an obsolete regulations was ok, i would love to hear from them!" is not a question, it is a statement, as was mine.

ok, do you think there will be anybody who can comment on either situation from experience?

why do you think i invited the OP to look at the introduction on page.4?

I don't know why you did that.

Try reading it in wrt what the OP says, it may give enlightenment

You want to tell him to let the council bully him into accepting their unlawful...position

wrong

I guess I must have misinterpreted all your talk of taking the path of least resistance and going for an easy life and all that melodramatic stuff about going out on a limb, shiny-suited sharks and picking the bones out of legal carnage as suggesting that he should just let the council bully him into submission as that would be the easiest thing to do.

maybe it was a touch melodramatic, but it was illustrative also. The OP has a job to do, if i were him, id want the least hassle to complete that job, not a fight over principles. But thats his choice, you have given him sufficient info to fight the injustice as you see it. I have given him a sensible alternative to put the job to bed and get paid.

I would advise the OP to take the path of least resistance

The path of least resistance is allowing the council to bully him into acceding to their unlawful demands.

In your opinion.

nobody is suggesting he hold his butt cheeks open for the council to 'do him like a gud'un', but why fight a battle where avoiding it may cost less, take less time and give a less of a headache?

That's for him to decide, but IMO a few letters/phone calls and a bit of agitation through his councillor is worth a shot.

Worth a shot, agreed. Worth digging his heels in and arguing all the way, maybe just not worth it?

nope, im asking you whether you could ask your questions with less negatives within them?.

I've looked back at what I've written, and I can't see anything with superfluous negatives in, so unless you can highlight something where you consider there are then there's nothing I can do.

how far back did you look?

I live 100+ miles from Winchester, why would i bother to ask them anything?

Because they are the ones acting as if they can prove something not safe, and you are the one concerned about that concept.

Its not my problem, and you are mistaken about my concern.

I personally have no problem in understanding what you have written, i just think it could be improved to give a greater degree of clarity by not asking to prove negatives.

I did keep asking riveralt if he would be prepared to testify that something was not reasonably safe, but that's because that is what he believes, and that's what a council would have to do. The law requires the work to be reasonably safe, so to refuse a certificate must mean they believe it to not be reasonably safe, and they must believe that they could prove that if called upon to do so.

If you believe that the OP should argue with the council jobsworths, why don't you shed your anonimity and tell the OP that you will stand by his side in court as a sort of expert witness/electrical consultant. Im sure the OP would be happy to have you help him. I bet you are closer to Winchester than i am.

Were you not creating explainatory truth tables to enlighten Coljack?
I thought you were?

I was, but the subject matter was entirely of his choosing.

Can't be bothered to go through all that rammel again to refresh my memory, you may be right. Would you like to bump that thread with some wise words?

 

[Paul_C]

the RCD will minimise the amount of current and time you are exposed to that current.

It will only limit the amount of time a person is subjected to the current by tripping. It will not limit the actual amount of current which flows for that time.

Short circuit conditions more current would flow: Not sure your right here remember I was talking about additional protection whose purpose is to minimise injuries to human and life stock.

General opinon is that human body has a resistance of between 300 and 1000 ohms. Assume worst case of 300 ohms and direct contact then 766mA will flow if the human causes the short circuit - still enough to kill you but not as high as you have stated.

I was taking short circuit to mean a very low resistance fault, as in metallic L-N or L-E contact, in which case the current will greatly exceed the 36A you mentioned. But you seemed to be suggesting that such a current could be delivered to somebody unfortunate enough to come into contact with a live part, which would mean a body resistance of less than 7 ohms. As you've just pointed out, that isn't the case; even figures from the electric chair with around 2000V and securely attached electrodes show a body resistance of over 100 ohms.

Well actually the Health and Safety at Work Act does require that the current standard of BS7671 (2008) is used when it comes to Electrical Safety. And we are all covered by this Act.

Not when doing work in one's own home.

 

[deejaybee101]

mikhailfaradayski: It's a bit cheeky I know, but would you be willing to post a summary of the introduction on P4 of the BS7671:2008 regs please?

kind regards,

djb

 

[riveralt]

Well actually the Health and Safety at Work Act does require that the current standard of BS7671 (2008) is used when it comes to Electrical Safety. And we are all covered by this Act.

Not when doing work in one's own home.

With regard to doing work in ones own home - I agree. But remember, the original post and seemingly the whole purpose of this debate was conerning whether BS7671 16th edition or 17th edition applied.

In this particular case the domestic premises concerned are covered by H&S Act because someone else was working on the premises - this makes it a place of work. Therefore, according to H&SE the 17th edition is standard.

 

[davelx]

I wouldn't bet on it! I spoke to my local authority about this and what they told me, in summary, was as follows:

What they told you was, I'm afraid, slightly economical, truth-wise....etc

Yes, I know - and I agree with all your points. That doesn't change anything though.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

mikhailfaradayski: It's a bit cheeky I know, but would you be willing to post a summary of the introduction on P4 of the BS7671:2008 regs please?

kind regards,

djb

sure,

''BS7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations was issued on 1st Jan 2008 and is intended to come into effect on 1st July 2008. Installations designed after 30th June 2008 are to comply with BS7671:2008.

The Regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to exisitng installations. Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with with earlier editions of the regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.''


So, when was your installation designed?
Depending on that, does your install have to comply with the 17th?

If the work you are doing is just finishing something that was never completed, could it be described as an addition or an alteration? Or is it just finishing off an outstanding job?

More questions than answers, im sorry, but it could be interesting to hear the response from BC about that...

out of curiosity, how much time and money do you think it would take to make this install comply with the 17th? Maybe a just a couple of RCBO's £50-60 ish and a rig-jig of the board?