Earthing of outdoor lighting

[JohnW2]

A bit harsh though with this comments! All that was asked which regulation was being suggested to comply to, hardly qualifies Risteard as troll or AKA Ixboy and not worthy of suggesting ignoring. ... I don't even personally recall anything Risteard has posted previously, that would make these comments valid.

I agree. Risteard posts a fair bit, and his posts are generally very reasonable. I certainly don't think that the 'troll' or 'Ixboy' accusations were in any way justified.

In terms of the specific, Risteard was perhaps being slightly mischevious. In asking what regulation required an outdoor Class I light fitting required it to be RCD-protected, I suspect that he was attempting to highlight the fact that (surprisingly) there probably is not any regulation which explicitly requires it (unless youcan think of one) - even though, as Bernard said fairly strongly, common sense certainly suggests that there should be.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... Over this are a number of umbrella pieces of law which do not specifically state that they apply to electricity (or gas, oil, etc). ... The most obvious one is the Health and Safety at Work, Etc, Act, 1974. ... everyone has a duty to safeguard others from the effects of their actions and this includes domestic situations. I for one would have no difficulty in using this legislation to prosecute if someone was injured because an electrician or DIY person failed to take due care and exercise due diligence.

That's undoubtedly true - and, indeed, is often wheeled out by those questioning why additional specific 'electrical legislation' (i.e. Part P of the Building Refulations) was required. I suspect, but obviously don't know, the reason for that was that it probably is quite difficult to prosecute using general 'duty of care' legislation unless injury (or maybe property damage) has occurred - whereas, at least in theory (it doesn't seem to happen), I presume that people could be prosecuted for failure to comply with 'Part P' even if there had not (yet) been any consequential injury/damage. Also, of course, if injury or property damage results, I presume that it would always be possible to seek civil remedies, even if there were no legislation at all.

Failure to use a well known and generally used piece of protective equipment (RCD) would certainly show a failure to comply with the law.

I'm definitely no lawyer, but I'm not so sure about that. Failure to utilise an RCD when there was a 'recognised requirement' (even if non-statutory - e.g. per BS7671) so to do would obviously fall into the category you are talking about. However, I would have thought that it would be difficult to prosecute (even if there were an injury which might have been prevented by an RCD) because of absence of an RCD if, although 'well-known and generally used', the use of an RCD in the situation concerned was not actually required by the current Wiring Regulations. Is that not the case?

Interestingly, the only (electrical) case with which I personally have been involved concerned an electrician electrocuted by wiring which had been incorrectly fitted by a DIY property owner. There were two prosecutions - HASAW and manslaughter.

That's interesting. It would make total sense if the victim had been a non-electrician. However, I'm a little surprised that such a prosecution (particularly the manslaughter one) would be successful (was it?) in the case of an electrician ... a competent electrician adopting 'safe practices' should surely not suffer injury from an electrical installation no matter what faults/errors were present - whether those faults/errors be 'Acts of God' or the work of an incompetent DIYer (or electrician!). Is that not the case? (at least good for the defence as 'mitigation', I would have thought, even if not a route to acquittal!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

To be honest I do not know if there is or isn't a regulation that specifically states that outdoor LV ( 230 volt ) lighting has to have its supply via an RCD or similar earth leakage detecting protection. I am told there is a regulation that states all external sockets ( and internal ones that may be used to supply equipment used outside the building ) must be protected by an RCD and assumed a similar regulation would apply to external lightning.

If there isn't such a regulation then I suggest the people who compiled the regulations have over looked something and may be also suffering from a lack of common sense.

 

[JohnW2]

To be honest I do not know if there is or isn't a regulation that specifically states that outdoor LV ( 230 volt ) lighting has to have its supply via an RCD or similar earth leakage detecting protection.

I think that's the point, and the reason Risteard 'challenged' you. I'm not aware of any such explicit regulation.

I am told there is a regulation that states all external sockets ( and internal ones that may be used to supply equipment used outside the building ) must be protected by an RCD and assumed a similar regulation would apply to external lightning.

There was, I believe, such a regulations about sockets likely to be used for outdoor equipment in the '16th Edition'. However, in the current regs there is obviously a requirement for all sockets (<32A) for used by 'ordinary people' to be RCD-protected, so there's no longer a need for specific provision for sockets likely to be used for outdoor equipment. However, I totally agree with you. Even in the '16th Ed' days, the fact that there was a requirement for RCD protection of sockets likely to be used for outdoor equipment would make one expect that there would have been a similar requirement in relation to fixed-wired Class I outdoor equipment (like lights). However, I don't think there was/is.

If there isn't such a regulation then I suggest the people who compiled the regulations have over looked something and may be also suffering from a lack of common sense.

As above, I totally agree. It seems that your only mistake was to say 'by regulation' (as well as 'per common sense') without being sure of the facts

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

I have no difficulty with anyone supplying luminaires outside with an RCD if they so wish, but I don't think it should be likened to socket outlets as these are likely to be used to supply portable/hand-held equipment, and obviously the danger also exists of severing the supply lead or it coming loose. A garden light supplied via SWA cable does not carry the same risk.

As said, if the Designer perceives that the risk exists then by all means utilise an RCD.

Obviously I am not referring to the use of an RCD for fault protection as is likely to be necessary in a TT system.

 

[JohnW2]

I have no difficulty with anyone supplying luminaires outside with an RCD if they so wish, but I don't think it should be likened to socket outlets as these are likely to be used to supply portable/hand-held equipment, and obviously the danger also exists of severing the supply lead or it coming loose. A garden light supplied via SWA cable does not carry the same risk.

I'm not sure that (in terms of common sense), I totally agree. If (as it has been for a long time) it is deemed necessary to have RCD protection for outdoor portable/hand-held equipment (which is nearly always Class II - so the main risks are thouse associated with cutting the cable), I do think that it would be very sensible to have a similar requirement for fixed Class I outdoor equipment (like lights) which had touchable exposed-conductive parts. Of course, as you say, so long as the installation is fault-free, there is minimal risk - but faults, even multiple faults, do occur.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

To be honest I do not know if there is or isn't a regulation that specifically states that outdoor LV ( 230 volt ) lighting has to have its supply via an RCD or similar earth leakage detecting protection.

There isn't unless we are talking TT.

 

[viewer]

To John,
The manslaughter was dropped and for the life of me I can't remember if there was another, lesser, charge accepted. The idea being that the DIY person had failed to inform the electrician of the works. The situation being that a piece of equipment was joined to both the circuit he was working on and also to another building fed from a different supply. No Part P in those days. The electrician I assume checked for dead, but when the other building circuit was energised it backfed. Obviously they were on the same phase or the DIY merchant may have had a surprise. The RCD issue is interesting as the H&S philosophy is as I said, the idea being that no specific regulation could be constructed for every eventuality in a technologically changing world and so the decision is left to the CPS legal heads and the courts to decide. A defence of not being required by regulation may work, but it is a bit like the old highway code where the code itself is not a regulation, but failure to follow its guidance will be held against you. It's also worth noting that the courts have convicted where the "victim" was acting illegally, e.g. burgulars falling out of windows and I suspect that this type of situation could easily be seen with electrical work especially where temporary protection is used.
To Risteard,
Apologies, I thought you were starting a wind-up which all too often ruins a good expose of points relevant to the original question posed.

 

[JohnW2]

To be honest I do not know if there is or isn't a regulation that specifically states that outdoor LV ( 230 volt ) lighting has to have its supply via an RCD or similar earth leakage detecting protection.

There isn't unless we are talking TT.

Yes, but even if it's TT and has an RCD, it might well not be a 30mA one, and could be time-delayed - so not necessarily what one wants for protecting human beings (and other animals!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

To John, The manslaughter was dropped and for the life of me I can't remember if there was another, lesser, charge accepted. The idea being that the DIY person had failed to inform the electrician of the works. The situation being that a piece of equipment was joined to both the circuit he was working on and also to another building fed from a different supply. No Part P in those days. The electrician I assume checked for dead, but when the other building circuit was energised it backfed.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of such a scenario - but that is surely a truly exceptional (and, I would think, incredibly rare) situation. In virtually any other situation I can think of, an electrician who got an electric shock, let alone electrocuted, could not have been adopting 'safe practices' (testing 'for dead' etc.).

The RCD issue is interesting as the H&S philosophy is as I said, the idea being that no specific regulation could be constructed for every eventuality in a technologically changing world and so the decision is left to the CPS legal heads and the courts to decide. A defence of not being required by regulation may work ....

I would have thought (probably also hoped) that such a defence would be very likely to succeed in the situation we're talking about. Given that there are regulations, last updated only 2 years ago, which explicitly indicate those situations in which RCDs are required, I would have thought that a court would find it hard to argue that it was also required situations other than those specified in the regs.

...but it is a bit like the old highway code where the code itself is not a regulation, but failure to follow its guidance will be held against you.

Indeed - but was it also not true that demonstration that one had complied with the code was a fairly strong defence? BS7671 derives from two respected organisations and is without doubt the set of regulations which dictates 'standard practice' throughout the industry. For a court to try to argue that the law (any law) required a standard of work (or duty of care) which went beyond the 'standard practices' dictated by those 'regulations' would, I suspect, have an 'uphill battle' on it's hands, wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

If a person perceives or is told there is a hazard and does not take appropriate action to protect life from that hazard then that person can be considered to be negligent and if there is an injury or fatality then it can be considered criminal negligence.

It does apply if the person acts in accordance with regulations but fails to do something that the regulations do not require but is necessary to reduce the risk of injury.

An example was the ammonia alarm beacons in a refrigerated food factory. An ammonia leak requires immediate and rapid evacuation of the affected area. Multiple beacons and klaxons were installed in the area as required by the ammonia guidelines / regulations. It was then pointed out that people outside the area could walk into the area without being aware there was a leak and be over come by fumes before seeing or hearing the alarm. Within two days of that being mentioned alarm beacons were installed outside all the doors leading to the area. It was considered that if someone had entered the area and been over come then a case of crinimal negligence would have been sucessful had there been no external warning system.

The regulations were based on evacuation and had overlooked the need to prevent people entering the area.

 

[viewer]

I think Bernard well reflects the H&S approach which (IMHO) is sound.
Yes, the "not required by regulation" would be used as a defence, but whether it would be accepted depends on many factors, including the view of 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. Nearly all disasters have a event-chain which if broken would have stopped the final result and the intention with H&S is to break the chain. Once it's gone wrong there is a tendency to blame the final actor or an individual and the no-regulation type of defence has been successful; hence the introduction of corporate manslaughter where the culture and overall control of the chain becomes more important. That said, going back to not fitting a RCD, I'd say that the expected knowledge of a DIY person should include the appreciation of the risks of electrocution and the benefits of a RCD as both are well publicised. Thus, not fitting a RCD is reckless as the hazard is known and there are no considerable cost-benefit issues. Whether the court would side with the no-regulation-defence or the reckless behaviour argument - who can tell?

 

[JohnW2]

... That said, going back to not fitting a RCD, I'd say that the expected knowledge of a DIY person should include the appreciation of the risks of electrocution and the benefits of a RCD as both are well publicised. Thus, not fitting a RCD is reckless as the hazard is known and there are no considerable cost-benefit issues. Whether the court would side with the no-regulation-defence or the reckless behaviour argument - who can tell?

Interesting - but I have to say that I'm a little confused and/or surprised. You are suggesting that for a DIY person not to protect an outdoor Class I light with an RCD may be reckless, because "the hazard is known" and that (s)he should have "an appreciation of the risks of electrocution and the benefits of a RCD as both are well publicised". However, we are talking about work (installing the light without an RCD) which, as far as we can tell (no-one has yet thought of any regulation which requires an RCD) which could be undertaken by a fully-qualified electrician, who correctly and truthfully completed certificates saying that it fully complied with BS7671 (which exists primarily to ensure adequate safety), and with the work being 'certified' as complying wit Part P of the Building Regs (the specific legislation requiring minimising of risk to persons), either by the electrician him/herself or by LABC. In that scenario, could a court really (perhaps I should say 'reasonably') regard the actions of that electrician as 'reckless' - and, if not, why would it be different if the work had been undertaken by a non-electrician? Similarly, again making me wonder whether it really could be regarded as 'reckless work', in the absence of a regulatory requirement, someone undertaking an EICR on the installation would not really be able to find fault with the lighting installation because of the absence of RCD protection.

I suppose the short form of my question is whether it would be reasonable for a court to regard work which had been undertaken fully in compliance with BS7671 as being 'reckless'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[viewer]

All good points, but, as I said, you can never tell which way a court will jump and our adversarial system doesn't help. Let's hope there's no need to find out.

 

[bernardgreen]

Let's hope there's no need to find out.

If the design is done properly from the start ( common sense and experience as well as compliance with applicable regulations ) then the need to find out will not arise.

Many cases that go to court involve someone knowing what was necessary but not doing all that was necessary.