Earthing of outdoor lighting

[JohnW2]

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.

Indeed - but I imagine that the mere suggestion that an electrician (let alone a DIYer) might have to defend themselves in court against a charge of 'reckless practice' when they had worked in full compliance with BS7671 would be pretty worrying to some! Indeed, if that is the case, then by what referenceable standards are they expected to work to avoid being accused of being reckless?

I'm no lawyer, but I would be inclined to suggest (hope!) that, in practice, no-one would ever be prosecuted (or sued) for being 'reckless' if they had worked in full compliance with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

no-one would ever be prosecuted (or sued) for being 'reckless' if they had worked in full compliance .

There have been cases in factory automation incidents ( accidents ) where full compliance was seen as inadequate in view of the fact that some hazard were obvious even though the design / install was fully compliant.

I vaguely recall one judge all but accusing the regulatory body of negligence in not forseeing a hazard to staff working on the maintainance of communication equipment.

 

[JohnW2]

I would be inclined to suggest (hope!) that, in practice, no-one would ever be prosecuted (or sued) for being 'reckless' if they had worked in full compliance .

There have been cases in factory automation incidents ( accidents ) where full compliance was seen as inadequate in view of the fact that some hazard were obvious even though the design / install was fully compliant. ... I vaguely recall one judge all but accusing the regulatory body of negligence in not forseeing a hazard to staff working on the maintainance of communication equipment.

That's obviously a possibility if the regulations are agreed to be unsatisfactory in ignoring some 'hazard which is obvious'. However, given all the expert opinion, plus a public consultation process, which goes into the drafting BS7671, with frequent revisions, I would have thought that it would be difficult for a court to argue that there was anything remotely approaching an expert consensus that that the regulations had left an 'obvious hazard' unaddressed.

In context, what I suppose I am saying is that, even though you, I and others feel that an outside Class I light without RCD protection is not a very sensible idea, there clearly must be a substantial body of expert opinion that does not regard it as an 'obvious hazard' which the regulations should address by requiring an RCD. If such a case ever did get to court, I therefore imagine that the proceedings might well reduce to an argument between two sets of expert witnesses. It is really not for a judge (or jury) to be making decisions on their own about what does and does not constitue an 'obvious electrical hazard' and/or whether the regulations, designed primarily to promote safety, are 'wrong'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[viewer]

Experience in many fields does show that there are often long and expensive battles between expert witnesses (an expert being one qualified to give an opinion), however, in this hypothetical case, I'd suggest that the prosecution would start by asking the accused had they ever heard of electrocution; they would then ask the accused, "Did you know about RCDs?" If the answer was ,"Yes", then the next questions would focus on why the accused chose not to use one (the defence here would be advice re regs - but they would have to show evidence). If the answer was, "No", then the following questions would focus on showing that the accused knew that electrocution was possible but undertook electrical work without making proper enquiries.

I completely understand concerns about the differences between regulations, CoPs, best practice and generally accepted as safe, but suggest that the leaders in any field will be those working in the field and that legislation lags behind the real world. The courts will use the current state of knowledge in interpreting risk factors.

It is clear that John and Bernard (and, I'm sure most posters on the forum) would never advise anybody to creep over a legal threshold or use a loophole and would not only look for the best and safest way to work, but would continually consider the unintended consequences which may result.
I won't post further on this, but thanks for taking the time to think and reply.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And bear in mind that in E&W, the law requires that 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.

It neither mandates compliance with BS 7671, nor limits people to only doing what it strictly requires.