Part P amendments

[plugwash]

yet nobody gives any evidence that the mcbs in thier install actually work properly and aren't some illegally made copy.

i guess a mcb tester would be a serious bit of kit though.

 

[Pensdown]

This is a 63amp MCB tester, I think they do smaller ones

 

[plugwash]

the short test would have a number of problems though

1: it could take out upstream protection too
2: it could be dangerous particularlly if the device did fail.

i'm thinking more of something that could apply a controlled test current of hundreds of amps to a breaker and record results like is done with RCDs.

 

[Adam_151]

This is a 63amp MCB tester, I think they do smaller ones

Looks just like a fuse to me

 

[Adam_151]

If they have revoked one section of it, how long before they repeal all of it?

I for one would welcome them to replace it with a compulsory (or at least advertise that its strongly recommended and if people don't go for it, its not through ingorance of the existance of such a report, and its at their own risk) PIR at house sale time (so potential buyers are in no doubt about the level of workmanship in the electrical system) which would in turn force DIYers to think twice about doing bodges, etc

 

[ambrougham]

Failing to comply with BS7671 is not an offence per se, nor does it mean that you have failed to comply with the Building Regulations.

For a prosecution to succeed, they would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had not made reasonable provision in the design and installation of the electrical installation in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installation from fire or injury.

They would have to do that by citing examples of unsafe work, backed up by expert testimony.

For them to attempt to simply say "it must be unsafe because the defendant cannot prove he worked to BS7671" would be doomed to failure.

The crucial thing to avoid is claiming blanket compliance with BS7671, since that would require you to do your own testing.

I guess you could claim that you had complied with P1 by meeting the relevant requirements in Parts 3, 4, 5 & 6 of BS7671.

However, how can anyone even suggest that their design/installation is satisfactory and safe without performing tests on it ? I would agree that in some instances it might be possible to argue that experience shows that certain factors aren't a problem and can therefore be guaranteed either by design or by similarity with previous work and so on but any installation does require some level of inspection and testing IMHO even if not strictly in accordance with the BS. I'm an electrical/electronic engineer not an electrician but even without consideration of what's stated in the BS or Building Regs, I have always considered it standard practise to double check terminations, confirm continuity and isolation for all conductors/circuits and confirm RCD operation where applicable. Protection against earth faults can be demonstrated by design or measurement. I would suggest that not performing these tests as a bare minimum shows a blatant disregard for safety and potentially leaves you wide open for a charge of negligence should a problem occur.

 

[Pensdown]

Looks just like a fuse to me

Thats why you need some on site training. You DIY types only see it as a fuse. Us pro's also see it as an un-calibrated MCB tester

 

[JohnD]

It is a tool enabling the un-labelled breaker in a remote board, to be identified from a distant appliance.

 

[Pensdown]

It is a tool enabling the un-labelled breaker in a remote board, to be identified from a distant appliance.

LMAO

Don't give away all our trade secrets

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Surely you do the test the other way round, using an apprentice?

Turn off all circuits - apprentice grasps a pair of conductors, you turn on circuits until he shouts *£^%@#$)}!!!

 

[Adam_151]

Surely you do the test the other way round, using an apprentice?

Turn off all circuits - apprentice grasps a pair of conductors, you turn on circuits until he shouts *£^%@#$)}!!!

Ban thats evil...

us apprentices* are perfectly capable of shocking ourselves

*I'm not actually one yet

electronics is a dangerous hobby, mmm'kay

(involved a mains switching interface controlled from serial port, had the cover off it, and was holding it, turned round to look at the screen and fingers wandered across to one of the fuseholders... )

 

[BOB NUTS]

No - you are incorrect. They are not as good as the law. You haven't substantiated this statement.

Apparantly not substantiating a comment makes me incorrect? Whats right is right - regardless of substantiation or lack of.

You're entitled to your opinion, which is that there already exists a precedent for basing a point of law on the BS 7671. IMO you're wrong.

Well that was worth waiting for - your long awaited and much guarded opinion turns out to be that my opinion is wrong - truly enlightening.

True, I am entitled to my opinion (btw thanks for telling me what it is - does that make it mine or yours? - thats two opinons in one post must be Beano day - hurrah) but why do you think thats my opinion? It seems that your opinion is based on a misinterpretation of my opinion.

I take it that when you say "benchmark" you mean "legal precedent". If so, I don't why you don't use the correct term. If not, I don't know what you mean by "benchmark" in a legal context.

I've never mentioned "presidents", legal or otherwise so why oh why would i use that term. Your assumption of what i mean is wrong. You dont know what i mean by benchmark so you change what i mean into something else - cheers, thats a stroke of genius.

Failing to follow advice in an Approved Document does not mean that you have failed to comply with the Building Regulations

True - not following an approved document does not mean you have failed to comply with the Building Regulations. But not following an approved document can be relied upon as tending to establish the liability of the installer for non-compliance.

The approved documents/british standards (and probably other documents - NEC?) are important in establishing what can be considered 'reasonable provision' - otherwise what is the definition of 'reasonable provision' for this law? So i think they are likely documents to be refered to in court along with the britsh standards.

(where between these far-fetched extremes does 'reasonable provision' fall -

could bare surface mounted wires with no insulation be considered reasonable in a house - 'people should know not to touch them because they are obviously dangerous - so thats reasonable.'

or

to prevent people sticking their toungues into live plug sockets should there be covers and alarms on every plug socket to warn people against such actions.)

 

[Softus]

No - you are incorrect. They are not as good as the law. You haven't substantiated this statement.

Apparantly not substantiating a comment makes me incorrect?

I don't know how you've inferred that from what I've written. I made three seperate statements, only one of which had anything to do with substantiation.

Whats right is right - regardless of substantiation or lack of.

I fully agree, in principle, but in this particular instance I believe that you're wrong. If you explain your reasoning then I might find out that you're right, or I might be able to illustrate where your thinking is wrong, but you seem unwilling to substantiate your assertion.

You're entitled to your opinion, which is that there already exists a precedent for basing a point of law on the BS 7671. IMO you're wrong.

Well that was worth waiting for - your long awaited and much guarded opinion turns out to be that my opinion is wrong - truly enlightening.

I see no need for sarcasm, other than as a smoke screen to cover up your flawed logic. I never suggested that you wait for my opinion, nor implied that I was about to declare one. I've asked you for more information about the "Mitchell and Drinkwater cases", but nothing came of that.

This whole thing started because I asked you about your opinion. If you don't want to explain your reasoning then that's fine by me; I'm happy to agree to disagree.

True, I am entitled to my opinion (btw thanks for telling me what it is - does that make it mine or yours? - thats two opinons in one post must be Beano day - hurrah) but why do you think thats my opinion? It seems that your opinion is based on a misinterpretation of my opinion.

I haven't misinterpreted anything. My opinion was, and still is, that your original assertion, being that "BS [7671] would be the benchmark guidance in court unless demonstrated otherwise", was wrong.

I take it that when you say "benchmark" you mean "legal precedent". If so, I don't why you don't use the correct term. If not, I don't know what you mean by "benchmark" in a legal context.

I've never mentioned "presidents", legal or otherwise so why oh why would i use that term. Your assumption of what i mean is wrong. You dont know what i mean by benchmark so you change what i mean into something else - cheers, thats a stroke of genius.

Unlikely, since I haven't changed what you meant - I explicitly wrote (please see above) that I don't know what you mean. If you won't tell me then I won't know, but you seem not to want me to guess.

Failing to follow advice in an Approved Document does not mean that you have failed to comply with the Building Regulations

True - not following an approved document does not mean you have failed to comply with the Building Regulations. But not following an approved document can be relied upon as tending to establish the liability of the installer for non-compliance.

Why do you think that it can be relied upon?

The approved documents/british standards (and probably other documents - NEC?) are important in establishing what can be considered 'reasonable provision' - otherwise what is the definition of 'reasonable provision' for this law? So i think they are likely documents to be refered to in court along with the britsh standards.

I think this is the nub of it - you have a view, which is that a court is "likely" to use as a benchmark (sic.), but you don't seem to see that this is only your view of how a court would operate, and is not actually realistic or accurate.

to prevent people sticking their toungues into live plug sockets should there be covers and alarms on every plug socket to warn people against such actions.)

I don't see that using an extreme and deliberately silly example of human folly does anything to further your argument. It might, however, distract some readers from being interested to know the real basis of your beliefs.

Going back some way on this topic, this happened:

Imo they are what would be refered to as the minimum standards if any case arrived in court - unless demonstrated otherwise.

Hope you don't mind me asking - what is this opinion based upon?

Your very next post was demeaning and sarcastic, and many of your subsequent posts continued in that vein. I don't know why you think I deserve personal comments from you. I said that I hoped you didn't mind me asking, but it seems that you did; quite acutely.

 

[ebee]

Lets bring religion into it.
That should quieten the situation a bit.

 

[Softus]