RCD requirements poll

[ban-all-sheds]

In your opinion, for which you will not (because you cannot) provide a citation to anything which supports your claim.

Nor you yours.

1. The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc. No "citation" needed - it says so in black and white.
   
   
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. No "citation" needed - it is so blindingly obvious that unless a genuine lack of intellect means that someone simply cannot understand then if they deny it it can only be because they are deliberately refusing to accept it.

As far as I can tell, you are trying to use BS7671 to support your argument by referring to its 30mA RCD regulation and insisting that not providing such is therefore "not reasonably safe" because the committee has specified it for new installations.

Yup - not using 30mA protection it is no longer considered safe enough for the practice to be allowed to be continued.

Yet at the same time you choose to ignore the guidance for inspections within BS7671 from the same committee which does not indicate that absence of such protection should warrant a code suggesting either immediate or potential danger.

I'll make you an offer:

I will stop telling you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new shortly after you stop pretending that there isn't.

I do not intend to rehash that argument here, but summarize it only for reference in this particular topic.

From now until one of us dies or until you leave, I will challenge you every single time you seek to grievously mislead people by telling them things like you did above.

If you don,t intend the argument to be rehashed, stop.

 

[JohnW2]

Judging by the evolving results of this poll, it seems that I probably took the poll question more literally than most people.

In this discussion, I have said several times that we should make sure that an OP aware of regulatory requirements and, if appropriate, important safety issues. My 'no' vote relates to the fact that I do not think that we should "go on and on" about anything, since I think that is unnecessary, ineffective and sometimes even 'counter-productive'. We see at least one forum member "going on and on" about things fairly often, and it drives some of us to distraction. If an OP acknowledges what (s)he has been told (once) but argues about it or indicates that (s)he intends to ignore it, then that is their problem - and the chances of any further "going on and on" about the issue changing their mind/view are, IMO, very small, anyway.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If an OP acknowledges what (s)he has been told (once) but argues about it or indicates that (s)he intends to ignore it, then that is their problem - and the chances of any further "going on and on" about the issue changing their mind/view are, IMO, very small, anyway.

Then don't give them further advice.
I know your argument for doing this but it is up to the poster.

I sometimes wonder how much work is lost because of advice given on the forum.

However, it now seems we are at the stage where, if I do the work it will have to be done to the latest standards and costed appropriately but a DIYer may do it as cheaply as possible and with a complete disregard to the regulations - I use that word because we are regulated.

The alternative to implementing the latest regulations for new work, so that eventually the installation will be updated, is to legislate that no work may be done without complete renovation.
This, obviously is impractical, so the restriction to new work is a reasonable compromise.
The alternative being to carry on working to any old standard or none.

 

[JohnD]

From now until one of us dies or until you leave, I will challenge you every single time you seek to grievously mislead people by telling them things like you did above.

Obsessive.

 

[JohnW2]

If an OP acknowledges what (s)he has been told (once) but argues about it or indicates that (s)he intends to ignore it, then that is their problem - and the chances of any further "going on and on" about the issue changing their mind/view are, IMO, very small, anyway.

Then don't give them further advice. I know your argument for doing this but it is up to the poster.

You seem to have slid onto a totally different matter/discussion - which I haven't mentioned (or, frankly, even thought about) in relation to this thread/discussion.

Whether or not one (anyone) goes on to give advice if an OP has indicated that (s)he is going to ignore what (s)he has been told about regs and safety issues is a totally different matter. My point is that, whether or not anyone is going to give further advice, there is no point is "going on and on" about what should be done in the name of regs-compliance and/or safety - once that has been said (and acknowledged/ understood) once, constant repetition is unlikely to achieve anything useful, and may actually be counter-productive.

I sometimes wonder how much work is lost because of advice given on the forum. However, it now seems we are at the stage where, if I do the work it will have to be done to the latest standards and costed appropriately but a DIYer may do it as cheaply as possible and with a complete disregard to the regulations - I use that word because we are regulated.

I doubt whether that, per se, is much of an issue. DIY work (and encouraging/assisting people to do DIY work) obviously, by definition, causes electricians to 'lose work'. However, I would think that the majority of DIY work is done to avoid an electrician's labour charges (which usually represent the bulk of the total cost), not because a DIYer can do non-compliant things which an electrician couldn't. Indeed, a common reason for people asking questions here is to ascertain what is necessary for their DIY work to be reg-compliant ("allowed", "legal").

The alternative to implementing the latest regulations for new work, so that eventually the installation will be updated, is to legislate that no work may be done without complete renovation. This, obviously is impractical, so the restriction to new work is a reasonable compromise. The alternative being to carry on working to any old standard or none.

There are other alternatives, although none would be without their problems (of implementation, 'policing' or whatever). For example, there could be a requirement for all installations to comply with a particular regulation X years after it first came into force, but without a requirement for modifications/additions to be compliant with the regulation prior to that.

However, again, that is not what I've been talking about - I've merely been talking about the inappropriateness (and little point) in "going on and on" about anything. The fact that we do see some "going on and on" in this forum is, as far as I am concerned, one of the forum's greatest 'annoyances'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

The fact that we do see some "going on and on" in this forum is, as far as I am concerned, one of the forum's greatest 'annoyances'.

I agree John. Why do you go on and on about it?

 

[JohnW2]

The fact that we do see some "going on and on" in this forum is, as far as I am concerned, one of the forum's greatest 'annoyances'.

I agree John. Why do you go on and on about it?

I said it in the very first response in this thread, but people keep commenting about it, and/or challenging it and/or assuming that I'm saying something that I'm not saying ...

... my 'no' vote has got nothing specifically to do with RCD protection of sockets, nor whether regulations should apply to all new work (even when most of the installation remains non-compliant with current regs) nor whether or not further advice should be given to someone who refuses to accept initial advice about regs/safety. Rather, it is a reflection of the fact that I do not believe that we should "go on and on" about anything, once the point has been made (and, yes, this post is a a sort-of perpetuation of such a practice, largely thanks to you ).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I've used this before:

"I want to kill my wife. What is the best way of doing it?"

Tell me once it is against the law and then tell me how to do it, after all, you're not law enforcement officers, it has nothing to do with you.

The reason, you take the stance that you do must, surely, be because you disagree with the regulation.

Yes please I'm all ears. Although it does raise a good point. Every night we seem to watch TV programs which explain how to kill some one and how people get caught. One is even called "How to get away with murder" so it seems this is permitted.

The BS7671 is not law and never has been so because it says fit one in the regulations does not mean they must be fitted. My Father-in-law said to me back in about 1995 if your children or wife are injured you will never forgive yourself for not fitting them so I fitted RCD's to both fuse boxes. However his house still has no RCD protection. This was well before the regs required it. It was simple common sense.

As to how many times we should tell people I will agree each poster only needs to say it once. However that still means they are told many times as each poster tells the person they should fit them.

Problem is we don't see who lives in the house. It is unlikely my mother even without RCD protection will ever get a shock. But my son-in-law is getting into DIY and also has two daughters who may fiddle so for him far more important.

Now this thread exists all we need to do is direct to this thread.

 

[PBC_1966]

It should be mentioned.
BS7671 requires it, and has done for many years.

In the context of all sockets installed around the inside of the home for general use, it's required it since 2008. I'd hardly call that "many" years, more like a few.

I had lost track of the latest amendments, not following U.K. things so much now, but a little searching reveals that, apparently, even with the most recent amendment there is still an exception for a socket installed for a specific purpose and labeled accordingly.

But Part P is a regulation and the understanding is that to comply to part p that guidance offered in BS7671 should be followed

It is not compulsory. All that Part P requires is that the result be reasonably safe, and even the approved document itself contains wording to the effect that there is no obligation to follow any of the guidance within it.

Again, having losing track of the latest developments in the U.K., I just read through the current 2013 version of the Approved Document for Part P, and I see that the language about compliance with any of the other European standards being considered acceptable has been removed now, as has that part about fundamental principles for safety within one specific chapter of BS7671. It does seem as though the guidance has moved more toward suggesting compliance with BS7671 in full, but it's still not mandatory as the opening notes acknowledge.

and that reasonable provisions for safety should be in place. I personally would consider it reasonable to follow the guidance in BS7671 and install RCD protection as recommended.

But that does not necessarily mean that not complying with every last requirement of BS7671 results in an installation which is not reasonably safe.

For example, I don't think many here would go on and on and on about, for example, someone adding an extra switch cable buried in a wall at less than 50mm with no RCD. Someone may mention it - but to go on about it until we're convinced the op has added an RCD seems unlikely.

Oh, I don't know - I can think of one!

//www.diynot.com/diy/threads/why-no-rcd-protection-on-lighting-circuit.439855/page-6

 

[PBC_1966]

Nor you yours.

I linked to an article from the IET's own journal, which in turn refers to an appendix within BS7671 itself in which it's set out that the lack of RCD protection is not to be considered dangerous per se.

The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc. No "citation" needed - it says so in black and white.

I don't think anyone, including myself, has ever disputed that.

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.

What makes you think that the requirements in a standard cannot and do not go beyond what is considered the minimum acceptable in order to be considered reasonably safe?

Go back to the former method of coding an inspection (codes 1 - 4). If those responsible for updating the regulations considered that with each new amendment anything less than full compliance with the new rules was no longer to be considered as being reasonably safe, then what was code 4 doing as an option on the report? If not complying with some regulation meant that they considered the result to not be reasonably safe, then it would never have been used, and everything would have to have been code 2 at the very least.

The new system has removed a direct equivalent of code 4, but the principle still stands. If some relatively trivial deviation from BS7671 is only to result in a C3 at worst, then it can't be considered unsafe by the committee. In fact C3 wouldn't even exist, just the same as the old code 4 wouldn't have existed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I linked to an article from the IET's own journal, which in turn refers to an appendix within BS7671 itself in which it's set out that the lack of RCD protection is not to be considered dangerous per se.

BS 7671 no longer allows it to be installed anew.

THAT.

IS.

THE.

WAY.

IT.

WORKS.

What makes you think that the requirements in a standard cannot and do not go beyond what is considered the minimum acceptable in order to be considered reasonably safe?

What makes you think it is OK to tell unskilled/uninstructed people that because you refuse to accept that things change they should also do so?

Go back to the former method of coding an inspection (codes 1 - 4). If those responsible for updating the regulations considered that with each new amendment anything less than full compliance with the new rules was no longer to be considered as being reasonably safe, then what was code 4 doing as an option on the report? If not complying with some regulation meant that they considered the result to not be reasonably safe, then it would never have been used, and everything would have to have been code 2 at the very least.

The new system has removed a direct equivalent of code 4, but the principle still stands. If some relatively trivial deviation from BS7671 is only to result in a C3 at worst, then it can't be considered unsafe by the committee. In fact C3 wouldn't even exist, just the same as the old code 4 wouldn't have existed.

The world is full of examples where things change, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today, but 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, and natural wastage will take care of eliminating the legacy.

It is such a common principle that it truly beggars belief that you think you can get away with saying that it doesn't work that way. You've whined before about insults - you insult everybody's intelligence every time you expect them to believe your bull***t.

My offer is still open - I will stop telling you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new shortly after you stop pretending that there isn't.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the context of all sockets installed around the inside of the home for general use, it's required it since 2008. I'd hardly call that "many" years, more like a few.

Actually it's more like "several".

But whatever - it is still 7 years since things changed.

So get over it - accept that things change, and stop thinking that you can use this forum to wage war on the concept of things changing.

But that does not necessarily mean that not complying with every last requirement of BS7671 results in an installation which is not reasonably safe.

That's exactly what it means.

 

[PBC_1966]

BS 7671 no longer allows it to be installed anew.

I never claimed that it does, nor I think has anybody else. That's not the point.

What makes you think it is OK to tell unskilled/uninstructed people that because you refuse to accept that things change they should also do so?

What I've advocated is that common sense should be applied when we're talking about a very minor issue. In the grand scheme of things, adding an odd socket or two without going to the extra expense of providing RCD protection in a room already full of such sockets, or providing an extra switch drop without RCD protecting the cable in a house already full of such wiring is just not a big deal. And whether you like to accept it or not, the same standard which specifies such protection for new wiring also acknowledges that wiring without it is still reasonably safe, otherwise it would be insisting on some sort of "danger" coding. You're trying to insist that somehow a different standard of assessing what is "reasonably safe" needs to be applied in each case, even though the inspection criteria within the standard you're quoting specify that the installation is to be judged against the current version of the standard.

As John outlined earlier, we can explain to those unskilled people what the current standard specifies and try to explain what (small) increase in relative safety doing something might provide. What is also wrong with pointing out that not doing some trivial thing which wasn't even demanded by the standard just a few years ago is still regarded as reasonably safe by those responsible for maintaining that standard? Do you really believe that any normal person is going to accept that something which was installed on day X is to be regarded as reasonably safe, while the same thing installed on day X+1 is not?

Even BS7671 itself doesn't require that everything installed after the date of an amendment or new edition be to that new standard, only something designed before that date. If something was really that much of a safety issue, it would be demanding that from the date in question everything installed had to be done to the new rules and anything designed before that would need to be re-designed to the new standard before installation (not much in the way of earlier design needed for simple domestic jobs, but nevertheless it's a valid point).

My offer is still open - I will stop telling you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new shortly after you stop pretending that there isn't.

But that does not necessarily mean that not complying with every last requirement of BS7671 results in an installation which is not reasonably safe.

That's exactly what it means.

Then I'll ask you again - Cite something which, from the legal point of view of Part P, says so.

 

[stillp]

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that the definition of insanity is repeating an action over and over again and expecting different results.
I think you've both made your position clear, so repeating it is not likely to change the other's viewpoint.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I never claimed that it does, nor I think has anybody else. That's not the point.

Of course it is.

I'll leave it to others to decide if your assertion that it is not (basically an assertion which you keep making) stems from stupidity or because you do not want it to be so.

What I've advocated is that common sense should be applied when we're talking about a very minor issue.

No - you have advocated that your version of common sense, which is to refuse to accept that things change, should be applied.

In the grand scheme of things, adding an odd socket or two without going to the extra expense of providing RCD protection in a room already full of such sockets, or providing an extra switch drop without RCD protecting the cable in a house already full of such wiring is just not a big deal.

It's illegal.

It may not be done any more.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Get over it.

And whether you like to accept it or not, the same standard which specifies such protection for new wiring also acknowledges that wiring without it is still reasonably safe, otherwise it would be insisting on some sort of "danger" coding. You're trying to insist that somehow a different standard of assessing what is "reasonably safe" needs to be applied in each case, even though the inspection criteria within the standard you're quoting specify that the installation is to be judged against the current version of the standard.

I am trying to get you to realise that it is a 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, and natural wastage will take care of eliminating the legacy.

But I will stop telling you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new shortly after you stop pretending that there isn't.

As John outlined earlier, we can explain to those unskilled people what the current standard specifies and try to explain what (small) increase in relative safety doing something might provide. What is also wrong with pointing out that not doing some trivial thing which wasn't even demanded by the standard just a few years ago is still regarded as reasonably safe by those responsible for maintaining that standard?

So now a safety feature of vital importance is trivial, is it?

But anyway - to answer your question there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that those responsible for maintaining the standard no longer regard something as safe enough to be continued to be newly done.

Do you really believe that any normal person is going to accept that something which was installed on day X is to be regarded as reasonably safe, while the same thing installed on day X+1 is not?

How dim does somebody have to be to be unable to understand the 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 it does not mean that what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday has to be updated or removed and replaced today?

But I will stop telling you that there is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new shortly after you stop pretending that there isn't.

Even BS7671 itself doesn't require that everything installed after the date of an amendment or new edition be to that new standard, only something designed before that date. If something was really that much of a safety issue, it would be demanding that from the date in question everything installed had to be done to the new rules and anything designed before that would need to be re-designed to the new standard before installation (not much in the way of earlier design needed for simple domestic jobs, but nevertheless it's a valid point).

And typically not much in the way of long periods between design and construction for domestic jobs either.

But whether it be design date or construction date, there is still a date when things change.

That's the way it works.

Get over it.

Then I'll ask you again - Cite something which, from the legal point of view of Part P, says so.

1. The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc. No "citation" needed - it says so in black and white.
   
   
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. No "citation" needed - it is so blindingly obvious that unless a genuine lack of intellect means that someone simply cannot understand then if they deny it it can only be because they are deliberately refusing to accept it.