Electrics to Shed - dodgy advice?

[securespark]

My point being that to a professional electrician, it does not matter whether 7671 is law or not, we all work to it as a minimum standard, and using SWA a a flexible cable is a definate no-no. As I said before, it would be noted as not to current standards, or at risk.

Don't try to be cocky, it makes you look immature: I do not claim to know what other people are thinking. However, from the things other sparks have posted here, I believe they feel the same way that I do.

 

[Spark123]

whether you believe the regs to be law or not,

I don't merely believe the regs are not law, I know they are NOT!
Unless you can show me otherwise.

The iee regs may not be statutory but they are one way of showing compliance with P1 which is statutory.

 

[totallyspies]

The iee regs may not be statutory but they are one way of showing compliance with P1 which is statutory.[/quote]

Exactly, they are not. Thanks for confirming their legal status. That was my point.
You are correct, IEE regs are a way of showing complience.

 

[totallyspies]

My point being that to a professional electrician, it does not matter whether 7671 is law or not, we all work to it as a minimum standard, and using SWA a a flexible cable is a definate no-no.


If it is a definate no-no please show how it is against the law.

Don't try to be cocky,

If you mean by "cocky" as being a free thinking individual capable of logical debate and countering your unfounded statements, then Yes, I will continue to be "cocky"


it makes you look immature:

How so?



I do not claim to know what other people are thinking.

Really ? What does this (from your last post) mean then?


(well, not just me, but everyone else here who is)


However, from the things other sparks have posted here, I believe they feel the same way that I do.


Well thats what you believe, not actual proof.

 

[totallyspies]

My point being that to a professional electrician, it does not matter whether 7671 is law or not.

So, If BS7671 were law, to you and professional electricians it would not matter!

Do you think that's a contradictory statement. LMAO

 

[Steve]

To clarify my point. I said that you could, without BC approval, use the sets for sale from here

http://www.greenbrook.co.uk/

as a way of supplying an electrical supply to a shed, providing it wasn't fixed.

IT HAS TO BE FIXED TO MAKE IT SAFE! If we are talking about the armadillo sets . . . they have to be fixed to something and the Cable has to follow certain routes externally, ideally 18 inches underground or FIXED TO A PERMENANT WALL. Both of these are FIXED. Running along a flowerbed isn't an option, as it isn't considered safe.

And the sockets / switches cannot just be left dangling from the ground. They have to be fixed to something of the SWA joints will loosen and disintegrate.

 

[RF Lighting]

You are correct in stating that BS7671 is not law. but however "Installations which conform to the standards laid down in BS7671 : 2001 are regarded by HSE as likely to achive conformity with the relevant parts of The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989."

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 ARE LAW. The Health and Safety Executive will enforce compliance with BS7671 under The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. BS7671 is non-statutary, but not compliance can result in criminal prosecution under The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

 

[totallyspies]

You are correct in stating that BS7671 is not law. but however "Installations which conform to the standards laid down in BS7671 :

The work I suggested DOES NOT conform to BS7671 because as you say they are not law.. Thats the point.

2001 are regarded by HSE as likely to achive conformity with the relevant parts of The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989."

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 ARE LAW.

True they are law, but do they apply to domestic work? (im not trying to be smart, but genuinly asking the question)


BS7671 is non-statutary, but not compliance can result in criminal prosecution under The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

But how, if they are non statutory?

 

[Spark123]

The iee regs may not be statutory but they are one way of showing compliance with P1 which is statutory.

Exactly, they are not. Thanks for confirming their legal status. That was my point.
You are correct, IEE regs are a way of showing complience.

The iee regs can also be used in a court of law in evidence to claim compliance with a statutory requirement, i.e. if you don't use the iee regs to claim compliance with P1 then you can be leaving yourself wide open to prosecution in the absence of any other system (such as some other eu member states wiring regs), which I believe happened with one of the first prosecuted cases under part p.

 

[Spark123]

I don't think the EAWR applies to diy domestic work, iirc this was one of the reasons why part p was brought in.

 

[RF Lighting]

I don't think the EAWR applies to diy domestic work, iirc this was one of the reasons why part p was brought in.

"The EAW Regulations will apply to electrical work in domestic premises. Such work will fall to HSE to enforce."

The work I suggested DOES NOT conform to BS7671 because as you say they are not law.. Thats the point.

"Circumstantial evidence should suffice to indicate that electricity is present and that the EAW Regulations apply.
Such evidence could include:

(ii) that the equipment was connected to a supply via a 3-pin plug;"


All quotes taken from HSE website.

You sure you want to wire up that extention lead?

 

[totallyspies]

The iee regs can also be used in a court of law in evidence to claim compliance with a statutory requirement, i.e. if you don't use the iee regs to claim compliance with P1

They could be used, however, P1 asks for reasonable provision etc. It would be down to the prosecution to show how your work was unsafe.

If you have installed suitable cable (BASEC Approved), suitable accesories (British standard approved) etc to a reasonable standard and earthing arangments that provide a low earth fault loop etc, no exposed live conductors, then how could they say you had not complied with P1?

You could also provide test, on your own test results form, results to show satisfacory IR, polarity etc etc etc

You will have taken reasonable steps to ensure a safe installation.

I think they would have a hard time proving you didnt comply with P1. All without mentioning BS7671.

 

[totallyspies]

The EAW Regulations will apply to electrical work in domestic premises. Such work will fall to HSE to enforce.


Please provide a link to this information.

 

[Spark123]

If you have installed suitable cable (BASEC Approved), suitable accesories (British standard approved) etc to a reasonable standard and earthing arangments that provide a low earth fault loop etc, no exposed live conductors, then how could they say you had not complied with P1? [/b]

What is a reasonable standard? Can you prove your installation is to a reasonable standard? BS7671 is a standard and other eu member states have their own standards which a court may deem to be reasonable. Although BS7671 is non-statutory, it is imo a good idea to follow it and therefore can be used to prove that the work I have done is, in the eyes of the law (P1) is to a reasonable standard.

You could also provide test, on your own test results form, results to show satisfacory IR, polarity etc etc etc

I think you are allowed to do this anyway, the model ones are printed in the iee regs.

You will have taken reasonable steps to ensure a safe installation.

Depends on who's standards you have adhered to and in the eyes of the law wether or not they are adequate.

I think they would have a hard time proving you didnt comply with P1. All without mentioning BS7671.

I think that if you did not work to BS7671 or another appropriate laid down standard you may find it is difficult to prove compliance with P1.

 

[totallyspies]

What is a reasonable standard?

Well exactly, P1 says reasonable standards, yet gives no guidlines as to what is reasonable.



Can you prove your installation is to a reasonable standard?

It would be up to the prosecution to provide evidence. The onus would be on them proving it wasnt, not me proving it was.


Although BS7671 is non-statutory, it is imo a good idea to follow it and therefore can be used to prove that the work I have done is, in the eyes of the law (P1) is to a reasonable standard.

But where does it say that BS7671 is the definition of reasonable? And that not following them is unreasonable?



Depends on who's standards you have adhered to and in the eyes of the law wether or not they are adequate.


So the argument in court may actually about adequacy of your adopted standard rather than BS7671 itself.



I think that if you did not work to BS7671 or another appropriate laid down standard you may find it is difficult to prove compliance with P1.

I wouldnt have to prove compliance. Again , that would be the prosecutions task of proving otherwise as the onus would lie with them. Innocent until proven guilty.