RCD requirements poll

[JohnW2]

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

It does. However, although one relates to 'what one does', whilst the other relates to 'what one ends up with', I think that, in practice, the difference is pretty subtle and that, if anything, what the law requires is probably less onerous than requiring that the installation be "reasonably safe" ... one could theoretically 'make provision for safety' which appeared very 'reasonable' and yet, for whatever reason, end up with an installation which was not necessarily 'reasonably safe' (at least, not in everyone's eyes).

However, if anything this makes it even more difficult to know how a court would rule (i.e. whether a particular piece of work was 'illegal' or not). As above, a court might be satisfied that someone had "made reasonable provision for safety", even though some might argue that the resulting installation was not 'reasonably safe'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

No, they are not.

But BS 7671 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.

 

[JohnW2]

But BS 7671 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.

I can but repeat what I wrote before - that, even if it is the opinion of some people that it is "not reasonable" to fail to comply with a particular requirement of BS7671, one simply cannot assume that such a failure automatically translates to non-compliance with the law. They are two separate things.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

even if it is the opinion of some people that it is "not reasonable" to fail to comply with a particular requirement of BS7671,

Wouldn't a court be more likely to consider whether or not it would have been reasonable to comply?

 

[PBC_1966]

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

If you make reasonable provision for safety then the resulting installation must be reasonably safe. If whatever you do results in an installation which is reasonably safe, then you must have made reasonable provision for safety.

Wouldn't a court be more likely to consider whether or not it would have been reasonable to comply?

With a standard with which there is no legal compulsion to comply? I would hope not. It should be looking at whether you satisfied the legal obligation to make reasonable provision for safety and therefore ended up with something which is to be considered reasonably safe.

 

[JohnW2]

Wouldn't a court be more likely to consider whether or not it would have been reasonable to comply?

I'm sure that would be one thing that they would consider. However, as I keep saying, the court's view as to whether or not it is reasonable to comply (or not comply) with a Standard does not necessarily equate to the courts view as to whether "reasonable provision for safety" was made/exercised. As I've said, they are two different things.

Some non-compliances with BS7671 would obviously also result in the decision that there had not been "reasonable provision for safety" - but that by no means necessarily applies to all non-compliances with the Standard. Do you, for example, really believe that a court would convict someone for failing to install a warning label or over-sleeving of a conductor?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Do you, for example, really believe that a court would convict someone for failing to install a warning label or over-sleeving of a conductor?

Or as B-A-S would have us believe, for failing to make reasonable provision for safety and thus ending up with something which is illegal merely for leaving an earth wire bare instead of sleeving it?

 

[stillp]

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

If you make reasonable provision for safety then the resulting installation must be reasonably safe. If whatever you do results in an installation which is reasonably safe, then you must have made reasonable provision for safety.

Wouldn't a court be more likely to consider whether or not it would have been reasonable to comply?

With a standard with which there is no legal compulsion to comply? I would hope not. It should be looking at whether you satisfied the legal obligation to make reasonable provision for safety and therefore ended up with something which is to be considered reasonably safe.

No. Making reasonable provision for safety is likely to result in a safe installation, but there's no 'must' about it.
Suppose someone was accused of failure to make reasonable provision for safety. The prosecution would be likely to claim that it would have been reasonable to have demonstrated reasonable provision for safety by compliance with a relevant standard. The defence would have to be that whatever he had done, although non-compliant, was a reasonable provision for safety. I can imagine that being difficult.

 

[JohnD]

something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

That depends whether you think, or can prove, that the choice is between "Reasonable" and "Not reasonable."

Maybe the standard strives for "good" or "excellent," both of which surpass "reasonable"

 

[PBC_1966]

Maybe the standard strives for "good" or "excellent," both of which surpass "reasonable"

Thank you. As I have asked B-A-S several times now:

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?

He seems reluctant to answer that question.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think it totally wrong to assert that something is 'illegal' when there is uncertainty about how a court would rule about it.

But what about asserting that something is not 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.

Do you mean in the same way that you and PBC keep saying that "it might be legal" to ignore what the Wiring Regulations say about RCD protection?

 

[PBC_1966]

No. Making reasonable provision for safety is likely to result in a safe installation, but there's no 'must' about it.

That defies logic. If the result is not reasonably safe, then how can you have made reasonable provision for safety?

Suppose someone was accused of failure to make reasonable provision for safety. The prosecution would be likely to claim that it would have been reasonable to have demonstrated reasonable provision for safety by compliance with a relevant standard. The defence would have to be that whatever he had done, although non-compliant, was a reasonable provision for safety. I can imagine that being difficult.

As John has suggested before, one could argue compliance with the specified standard in most areas except for specific things, for which one would then argue individually. Or one could start right back at electrical basics without referring to the standard at all and argue from basic principles of adequately sized conductors, protective devices, etc.

Although for me, my first argument would be that while it might be reasonable to have complied with BS7671 that does not automatically mean that is unreasonable not to do so (as the government's own guidance notes for Part P actually point out). And given that it is for the prosecution to prove its case, I would then expect the prosecution to argue what specific aspects of the resulting installation it considers not to be reasonably safe.

 

[JohnW2]

I think it totally wrong to assert that something is 'illegal' when there is uncertainty about how a court would rule about it.

But what about asserting that something is not illegal when there is uncertainty about how a court would rule about it?

Equally wrong. I may make mistakes at times, but I do my best never to make assertions about things which are clearly uncertain.

If you said that "it might be illegal", I would have no problem with that.

Do you mean in the same way that you and PBC keep saying that "it might be legal" to ignore what the Wiring Regulations say about RCD protection?

My understanding of English is that "might be illegal" also implies "might be legal", isn't yours?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Has anyone noticed that one of the people who voted Yes in this poll doesn't not appear to have ever posted in this forum, and not in any forum for several years, and that another has only posted twice in this forum (and virtually never anywhere else), and that 4-5 years ago?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Suppose someone was accused of failure to make reasonable provision for safety. The prosecution would be likely to claim that it would have been reasonable to have demonstrated reasonable provision for safety by compliance with a relevant standard. The defence would have to be that whatever he had done, although non-compliant, was a reasonable provision for safety. I can imagine that being difficult.

Agreed - not necessarily easy, but certainly not impossible ... and don't forget that we would be talking of a criminal prosecution, so that the defence would theoretically only have to introduce an itsy bitsy bit of 'possible doubt' regarding the prosecution's claim, hence wouldn't necessarily need a particularly strong argument.

Kind Regards, John