Can I do this as a DIYer???

[mikhailfaradayski]

Paul C,

It may possibly be the case that sockets upstairs wired to the 16th may not have RCD protection

Not just upstairs. There was no general requirement for all sockets - upstairs or downstairs - to be RCD protected under the 16th and previous editions.[/quote]

Are you sure about that? (check 471-06-01 7671:2001)

It is a foreseeable situation that any downstairs socket may be used to supply equipment for outdoor use.

 

[Paul_C]

Corollary: In what way is it not reasonable to work to the current version of the standard?

When the current version has completely lost the plot and seems to adopt a "do anything you like so long as you RCD it" approach?

But seriously, when we're talking about something as trivial as the new RCD requirements, I don't see how an installation which would have been considered perfectly acceptable in June 2008 could now, in August 2009, be deemed to have not made "reasonable provisions" for safety.

Does every one of those other standards referred to as being acceptable in the Approved Document stipulate the same RCD protection? I think you'll find the answer is no. So if the official line is that one of those standards without the extra RCD protection is acceptable, it would be totally illogical to then claim that you haven't made reasonable provision if you don't add an RCD on an installation which otherwise follows BS7671.

All those who, in a buyer's market, want to sell their house to someone who demands proof that work complied with the Building Regulations?

Probably a tiny number. After all, how many people have all the paperwork and certificates ever issued for their home? They all seem to manage the transaction just fine, with an appropriate PIR, gas check etc. if requested.

Or you might lose your buyer, and your chain might collapse, and the costs and hassles of all that might lead you to kick yourself for not behaving lawfully in the first place.

Where is there any unlawful behavior in the example at hand, which involves non-notifiable work?

I don't know how likely any of these are, but it's probably not the wisest course of action to pretend that they are impossible.

I think most people will weigh up possible against whether it's probable.

Alternatively, instead of trying to cimcumvent the rules which, whether you believe it or not, have been put in place mainly for safety reasons, you could just bite the bullet and have the job done properly and safely.

Again, in the case of non-notifiable work which complies with the vague requirement to make "reasonable provision" for safety, where is there any circumvention of rules?

I'm seeing a rather alarming trend toward installations which don't comply fully with every last detail of the current edition of BS7671 being deemed "unsafe."

Are you sure about that? (check 471-06-01 7671:2001)

It is a foreseeable situation that any downstairs socket may be used to supply equipment for outdoor use.

For that matter, any upstairs socket may/could be used to supply equipment outdoors if you care to drop an extension lead out of the window.

The 16th ed. BS7671 stipulated RCD protection for sockets likely to be so used. I've seen this "it means all downstairs sockets" interpretation before, but it really makes no sense. If, for example, there is a perfectly good weatherproof socket right outside the door, is it likely that somebody will run an extension lead through to the hallway instead? It's possible, but not likely.

If the 16th edition had intended this to mean all downstairs sockets, why didn't it say so?

 

[Need Help21]

Jesus!! what a debate I have started here!!! To clarify, the ring that requires alteration is RCD protected and has all been signed off by an electrician. Does this clear things up at all people???"!?!?!?!

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

For that matter, any upstairs socket may/could be used to supply equipment outdoors if you care to drop an extension lead out of the window.

Agreed, i too have seen a house built on a hill where to mow the back garden it was easier to chuck the extension out of the back bed window. But this should have been accounted for at the design phase of the build


The 16th ed. BS7671 stipulated RCD protection for sockets likely to be so used. I've seen this "it means all downstairs sockets" interpretation before, but it really makes no sense. If, for example, there is a perfectly good weatherproof socket right outside the door, is it likely that somebody will run an extension lead through to the hallway instead? It's possible, but not likely.

Sorry, but it didn't, it stipulated ".....which may reasonably be expected to supply portable....."

Reasonable and likely are two different things.

Maybe that is an example of an exception that proves the rule, what if there wasn't an outdoor socket? I would say on that there a lot of houses with gardens that don't have outdoor sockets.

The outdoor socket in your example, would require RCD protection anyway.

If the 16th edition had intended this to mean all downstairs sockets, why didn't it say so?

I don't know

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

HI Needhelp21,

The choice is yours, if you feel you are competent to do this job and are also happy to do it without any certification, then there's nothing to stop you. You are King of your castle.

If you feel that you may move house in the future, then be aware that there may (Not will !!) be a problem at the contract stage.

You have to weigh up the odds yourself

I still think it would be prudent, not necessary to get a spark to sort it.

 

[Need Help21]

I believe I am able to do the work myself, I may get a spark in to look over (and if need be) certify the job at a later stage. I am adding around 4 double gang sockets, I have purchased a box sinker and have installed lots of electrical work before so I feel comfortable doing it.

I will need an electrician in to wire a feed to a shower pump, underfloor heating controller, extractor fan, shaver outlet and new bathroom lighting at some point so I can get him to certify the sockets then.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

thats fine,

just for what its worth, if you want to do it that way, find a spark who is willing to sign off your work BEFORE you start doing the job, you might be surprised at many spark's reluctance to sign.

 

[Need Help21]

I have used the spark in mind before. I will remove all required floorboards so he can examine cable routeing, and he is of course free to remove all socket fronts. If it really comes to it, he can re-pull through any cables and reterminate. I will have installed all the backboxes which seems to be where the hard graft is He has certified the rest of the house.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

all sounds ok, i'd still be inclined to talk to him, tell him your intentions before work. Everyones happy then.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Stuff where he should have used [.quote] [ /quote] but didn't.....

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

?

BAS, i dont understand that

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK - here is what you posted:
. . . . .

For that matter, any upstairs socket may/could be used to supply equipment outdoors if you care to drop an extension lead out of the window.

Agreed, i too have seen a house built on a hill where to mow the back garden it was easier to chuck the extension out of the back bed window. But this should have been accounted for at the design phase of the build


The 16th ed. BS7671 stipulated RCD protection for sockets likely to be so used. I've seen this "it means all downstairs sockets" interpretation before, but it really makes no sense. If, for example, there is a perfectly good weatherproof socket right outside the door, is it likely that somebody will run an extension lead through to the hallway instead? It's possible, but not likely.

Sorry, but it didn't, it stipulated ".....which may reasonably be expected to supply portable....."

Reasonable and likely are two different things.

Maybe that is an example of an exception that proves the rule, what if there wasn't an outdoor socket? I would say on that there a lot of houses with gardens that don't have outdoor sockets.

The outdoor socket in your example, would require RCD protection anyway.

If the 16th edition had intended this to mean all downstairs sockets, why didn't it say so?

I don't know

. . . . .

And this is what you should have posted:

. . . . .

For that matter, any upstairs socket may/could be used to supply equipment outdoors if you care to drop an extension lead out of the window.

Agreed, i too have seen a house built on a hill where to mow the back garden it was easier to chuck the extension out of the back bed window. But this should have been accounted for at the design phase of the build

The 16th ed. BS7671 stipulated RCD protection for sockets likely to be so used. I've seen this "it means all downstairs sockets" interpretation before, but it really makes no sense. If, for example, there is a perfectly good weatherproof socket right outside the door, is it likely that somebody will run an extension lead through to the hallway instead? It's possible, but not likely.

Sorry, but it didn't, it stipulated ".....which may reasonably be expected to supply portable....."

Reasonable and likely are two different things.

Maybe that is an example of an exception that proves the rule, what if there wasn't an outdoor socket? I would say on that there a lot of houses with gardens that don't have outdoor sockets.

The outdoor socket in your example, would require RCD protection anyway.

If the 16th edition had intended this to mean all downstairs sockets, why didn't it say so?

I don't know
. . . . .

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

o oh, fair dos.
not entirely au fait with the quoting stuff. Just trying to respond to the poster.

BTW, you quoted me, not saying i didn't type it, but where did you get that text?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[Goldberg]

It's much easier to prove your installation is safe if you have worked to an approved standard

Such as BS7671:2001, which was current little more than a year ago? I think you'd have a hard time convincing the average person that something which was considered perfectly acceptable 14 months ago has now suddenly become unsafe just because the standard has been revised.

Corollary: In what way is it not reasonable to work to the current version of the standard?

OOI, do you know if the Building Regulations have been amended to refer to the 17th Edition?

AFAIK, the latest iteration of the SI refers specifically to BS 7671:2001, for example when defining the term "special location".

If it hasn't [been so amended], then how does a punter resolve the conflict in terms of lawfulness? Is it correct to work to the 16th Edition, i.e. by the letter of the law, or (electrically) safer to work to the 17th Edition, i.e. by the spirit of the law?