RCD requirements poll

[ban-all-sheds]

When I eat boiled eggs I sometimes break them at the pointed end. Can you cite a law which specifies this is legal?

1. The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc.
   
   
2. Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Quite apart from the specific arguments, is it not a basic principle of English law that one is innocent unless/until proved guilty?

It is.

As such, if there is a suggestion that some act is illegal, is it not for the accuser to produce evidence to prove that such is the case, rather than for the accused to have to produce evidence that the act is not illegal?

I think you'll find that "innocent unless proved guilty" applies to whether someone did or did not contravene the law, not the existence of the law.

Whatever, I really don't understand how you can possibly believe that the situation is as clear-cut as you are implying. The law merely requires that one had "made reasonable provision for safety...", and that word "reasonable" could keep lawyers and expert witnesses earning their fees for 'weeks'. I don't know what conclusion a court would come to any more than you do, but the outcome is certainly by no means a foregone conclusion.

1. The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc.
   
   
2. Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

 

[JohnD]

The sockets in my office are not RCD protected.

You are telling me that they are not reasonably safe, are you?

 

[JohnW2]

I think you'll find that "innocent unless proved guilty" applies to whether someone did or did not contravene the law, not the existence of the law.

Indeed so - and you are suggesting that someone who installed a new socket without RCD protection would be in contravention of the law.

The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc. ... Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

... but it can't be an hour ago that you agreed that it is 'sometimes' possible for something which is no longer compliant with BS7671 to satisfy the requirements of the law!

Sure, it's not black and white, and would require the deliberation of a court (after those 'weeks' of arguments from lawyers and experts) to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the law had been broken, but failure to comply with BS7671, per se, certainly would not guarantee a 'guilty' verdict ('beyond a reasonable doubt').

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed so - and you are suggesting that someone who installed a new socket without RCD protection would be in contravention of the law.

I am indeed.

but it can't be an hour ago that you agreed that it is 'sometimes' possible for something which is no longer compliant with BS7671 to satisfy the requirements of the law!

But not in every case.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The sockets in my office are not RCD protected.

You are telling me that they are not reasonably safe, are you?

I am telling you that they are no longer regarded as safe enough for it to be reasonable to continue to install them like that.

But then you know that.

Are you unfamiliar with the well established, widely encountered principle that when things change, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today, what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is not required to be updated or removed and replaced today. It just has to be no longer newly done?

 

[JohnW2]

but it can't be an hour ago that you agreed that it is 'sometimes' possible for something which is no longer compliant with BS7671 to satisfy the requirements of the law!

But not in every case.

So you said before - but you seem unable, incapable or disinclined to tell us what it is about this particular case which makes it 'not possible' for it to be compliant with the law although now non-compliant with BS7671.

Even if it is 'just your opinion', it would be interesting to know what is the basis for that opinion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

You are telling me that they are not reasonably safe, are you?

I am telling you that they are no longer regarded as safe enough for it to be reasonable to continue to install them like that.

... in the opinion of the authors of BS7671. However, the law is totally separate from, and does not refer to, BS7671, so one cannot automatically assume that the law (as interpreted by courts) will take the same view of what is 'safe enough' to be done today.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you said before - but you seem unable, incapable or disinclined to tell us what it is about this particular case which makes it 'not possible' for it to be compliant with the law although now non-compliant with BS7671.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done

is

not

reasonable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, the law is totally separate from, and does not refer to, BS7671, so one cannot automatically assume that the law (as interpreted by courts) will take the same view of what is 'safe enough' to be done today.

Seems that you and PBC are quite happy to assume that it will take the same view as you.

 

[JohnW2]

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

That's open to debate, but, in any event, the law is not directly interested in whether or not it is reasonable to not implement a requirement of BS7671 - it is concerned only with whether or not 'reasonable provisions for safety' have been made - and they are not the same thing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

However, the law is totally separate from, and does not refer to, BS7671, so one cannot automatically assume that the law (as interpreted by courts) will take the same view of what is 'safe enough' to be done today.

Seems that you and PBC are quite happy to assume that it will take the same view as you.

Not at all - I cannot 'second guess' a court. However, I think it totally wrong to assert that something is 'illegal' when there is uncertainty about how a court would rule about it. If you said that "it might be illegal", I would have no problem with that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

When I eat boiled eggs I sometimes break them at the pointed end. Can you cite a law which specifies this is legal?

But it's obvious that it's actually illegal to anyone who isn't "hard of thinking." Clearly it would be reasonable for you to break them at the big end, therefore for you not to do so is unreasonable, and thus to break them at the little end is illegal. Or something like that......

 

[PBC_1966]

Sorry - I don't know which of your irresponsible encouragements to lawbreaking contains what you think is a citation which proves that deliberately disregarding relevant safety provisions in BS 7671 counts as making reasonable provision for safety.

Then, to quote something you like to ask quite often, were you not paying attention?

For the last time: I provided you with a link to an IET article regarding inspection of electrical installations which in turn refers to an appendix in the very same BS7671 you are trying to use to argue your case. It indicates that the absence of RCD protection is not to be regarded, per se as dangerous.

I am telling you that they are no longer regarded as safe enough for it to be reasonable to continue to install them like that.

Then that's something else for which you need to cite something which backs up what you are telling us.

As I asked you earlier, but you did not answer, what makes you think that compliance with every single regulation within BS7671 is necessary for an installation to be considered reasonably safe, or "safe enough," by the committee which was responsible for drafting those rules? What makes you think that they cannot, by way of the regulations within the standard, suggest things which don't just meet the minimum standard of what they consider to be reasonably safe but which go beyond that for something which, if followed, results in a standard of safety which is higher than just reasonably safe?

... in the opinion of the authors of BS7671. However, the law is totally separate from, and does not refer to, BS7671, so one cannot automatically assume that the law (as interpreted by courts) will take the same view of what is 'safe enough' to be done today.

Indeed, and I don't disagree with anything you say about the law vs. BS7671. But as I just outlined above, where is anything set out that the authors of BS7671 even consider compliance with every single regulation within it as being necessary to achieve something which is "reasonably safe" when it's done?

By way of the inspection reports, which they emphasize are always to be carried out against the current edition of the standard, regardless of when the wiring was installed, they clearly acknowledge that there are some departures from the regulations which they consider to result in immediate and considerable danger, some which result in potential danger, and some which they don't consider dangerous at all, but for which they merely "recommend improvement." And with the demise of the old code 4, they have even suggested that some things which would formerly have received this coding not be coded at all if they don't "recommend improvement." Does that sound as though they're saying that failure to comply with every rule in the book results in something which is not reasonably safe?

 

[stillp]

what makes you think that compliance with every single regulation within BS7671 is necessary for an installation to be considered reasonably safe

The law does not require the installation to be 'reasonably safe', it requires the installer to make reasonable provision for safety.