Do I need a new electric CU for (Rental) EICR? (Ed.)

[ebee]

I don`t see 2008 edition as being well and truly out of date in all respects.
However my age may have a bearing on that perspective though.
I think that our joint perspective changes over time , example regs from 50 years ago might worry us that somethings that were allowed back then might be seen as a code C2 now where at the time hardly concerned us.
I think it is our relative perception on some items might change even if the actual relative safety does not.
One reason perhaps that we do an EICR and compare it to todays regs or the rental doc and compare it to 2018 regs.
I suspect that parliament will update the date referenced as time goes on but will never propose it to be the current regs at time of inspection because they will not allow a comitee other thn themselves to stipulate the law

 

[Murdochcat]

I don`t see 2008 edition as being well and truly out of date in all respects.
However my age may have a bearing on that perspective though.
I think that our joint perspective changes over time , example regs from 50 years ago might worry us that somethings that were allowed back then might be seen as a code C2 now where at the time hardly concerned us.
I think it is our relative perception on some items might change even if the actual relative safety does not.
One reason perhaps that we do an EICR and compare it to todays regs or the rental doc and compare it to 2018 regs.
I suspect that parliament will update the date referenced as time goes on but will never propose it to be the current regs at time of inspection because they will not allow a comitee other thn themselves to stipulate the law

I suspect that this legislation will never be updated

 

[JohnW2]

I suspect that this legislation will never be updated

Quite possibly - and equally possibly the 'associated documents', as per this example ....

.... The original Approved Doc P which, as far as I am aware, is still the 'current' one in Wales, includes this advice as to what is deemed to satisfy Part P ...

 

[JohnW2]

I don`t see 2008 edition as being well and truly out of date in all respects.

It's not. Indeed, a substantial part of it remains essentially unchanged today.

I think that our joint perspective changes over time , example regs from 50 years ago might worry us that somethings that were allowed back then might be seen as a code C2 now where at the time hardly concerned us. .... I think it is our relative perception on some items might change even if the actual relative safety does not.

Sort-of,although I would personally not so much talk of 'relative perception' but, rather, of changing attitudes to risks. In terms of absolute risk, a particular electrical practice, component, concept or whatever is no 'less safe' ('more dangerous') today than it was 5, 10, 20 or 50 years ago - but 'our' view of what degree of risk is regarded as 'acceptable' has changed considerably over the years.

However, exactly the same has happened in countless fields as well as in relation to electrical matters.

One reason perhaps that we do an EICR and compare it to todays regs or the rental doc and compare it to 2018 regs. I suspect that parliament will update the date referenced as time goes on but will never propose it to be the current regs at time of inspection because they will not allow a comitee other thn themselves to stipulate the law

They should, and both could and may - but, as has been said, their record of doing such things is not very good.

As I've reported before, a friend of mine who has recently retired from a long career as a lawyer involved in the drafting of legislation for a series of governments explained to me the probable reason that this legislation did not simply refer to "the current edition" of BS7671.

She said that they were extremely reluctant to have legislation which required compliance with any third-party material (Standards, Regulations etc.) which were not available for government and members of both houses of parliament to study, if they so wished, prior to the legislation being voted on. If, by requiring compliance with "the current" edition of BS7671, the legislation would require compliance with editions not yet written, those future editions might contain requirements with which government/parliament might not agree if they knew what they were going to be.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

I think that our joint perspective changes over time , example regs from 50 years ago might worry us that somethings that were allowed back then might be seen as a code C2 now where at the time hardly concerned us. .... I think it is our relative perception on some items might change even if the actual relative safety does not.

Sort-of,although I would personally not so much talk of 'relative perception' but, rather, of changing attitudes to risks. In terms of absolute risk, a particular electrical practice, component, concept or whatever is no 'less safe' ('more dangerous') today than it was 5, 10, 20 or 50 years ago - but 'our' view of what degree of risk is regarded as 'acceptable' has changed considerably over the years.

Yes John you have put that far better than I did. Thanks

 

[Murdochcat]

The problem with people referring to earlier versions of the regs is that THEY HAVE NO IDEA what has changed compared to the latest version

 

[JohnW2]

Yes John you have put that far better than I did. Thanks

Thanks, but I'm sure you could have done 'just as well'

As I said, we see these changes in what risks are regarded as ';acceptable' in all walks of life, but on of the problems (to my mind) is that 'they' seem to be making decisions about what risks 'we' regard as acceptable today - hence the not uncommon references to Ms Nanny!

Driving a car without a seat belt is no more dangerous today (probably less dangerous, because of advances in car design/construction) than it was in 1960. Allowing teenagers to 'play with mercury' in school physics labs would be no more dangerous today than it was when I did it in the 1960s ...... etc. etc. etc.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The problem with people referring to earlier versions of the regs is that THEY HAVE NO IDEA what has changed compared to the latest version

I'll leave it to eric to 'have words with you' regarding "what he has no idea about".

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

...were not available for government and members of both houses of parliament to study...

Ha ha ha.

 

[JohnW2]

Ha ha ha.

Sure, in practice few, if any, of the politicians will even look at things like BS7671.

However, what she was describing was a 'matter of principle' which persisted through her decades of working with a succession of governments, and I personally don't think that it is an unreasonable 'principle' ...

.... the alternative would be for the government to create legislation which effectively said something like "... everyone is legally obliged to comply with whatever rules Organisation X may choose to create in the future". That would mean that government was not 'in control of' what their legislation was 'requiring', and I would be very inclined to agree that such would not be a very satisfactory situation.

Kind Regards,
John

 

[Murdochcat]

I'll leave it to eric to 'have words with you' regarding "what he has no idea about".

How can he. He’s not got the current books, or the ones since the one he has from 2008

And I seem to remember that you aren’t up to date either

 

[ebee]

Just because you not got the current book does not always make you "not up to date" does it?

 

[ericmark]

It does seem we are returning to the higher safety standards of bygone days, not returned to man with red flag, but we have gone down to 20 MPH so cyclists are overtaking cars.

 

[JohnW2]

How can he. He’s not got the current books, or the ones since the one he has from 2008

It is clear from what he writes that he knows a lot about what is in editions of the regs beyond 2008.

And I seem to remember that you aren’t up to date either

... in which case your 'remembering' is faulty. How do you think I am able to quote from AmD 2 of BS7671:2018?

 

[JohnW2]

It does seem we are returning to the higher safety standards of bygone days, not returned to man with red flag, but we have gone down to 20 MPH so cyclists are overtaking cars.

I don't really agree.

We are certainly having 'ever-higher safety standards' forced upon us, seeming primarily because some people (some whose name may rhyme with "canny"!) think (without consulting 'us') that 'we' are now less prepared to accept small (often extremely small) risks than we were in the past - but, in the vast majority of cases, that represents a 'higher standard' (i.e. less preparedness to accept risk) than in 'bygone' days, not a return to "safety standards of bygone days".

I would think that the change you have cited (reduction in speed limits) is one of the very very few cases in which safety standards have moved in the direction of "bygone days", rather than the opposite. Can you thunk of any other examples?

She whose name rhymes with "canny" was not even born in those bygone days

Kind Regards, John