Reworded RCD Poll

[ban-all-sheds]

Is there, or is there not, still a specific RCD exemption in BS7671 for a socket installed for supplying a particular piece of equipment and which is so labeled?

You have to have a sound reason. You can't justify omitting the RCD just because it's convenient to do so.

That could also mean that they felt the existing requirement was perfectly adequate to make reasonable provision for safety, but they wanted to encourage provision of an increased level of safety.

It could also mean that they felt that the existing requirement was no longer adequate to make reasonable provision for safety wrt installing new sockets.

And now you're introducing another opinion that it is about vital safety, and not merely increased safety.

vital. adjective. Of or relating to life.

Not to mention, as you well know, that the "current standard which applies to electrical installations in this country" is not mandatory.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not mandatory, it 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 you are the only one who is trying to claim illegality without anything to support that claim.

But you are the one who is trying to claim that it is not illegal without anything to support that claim.

As John has pointed out already, anything which is not expressly forbidden by law is, by default, legal.

As I have pointed out already, not making reasonable provision etc is expressly forbidden by law.

For something to be illegal, there needs to be a law which says it is. In some cases that's by way of a very clear, precise piece of legislation which says so.

There is also a grey area open to interpretation when the law uses somewhat vague terms such as "reasonable provision" without defining the term further. To come to a conclusion that without doubt not providing the specified RCD protection in BS7671 is, in fact, considered illegal, you would need some sort of precedent set in case law which has deemed that lack of RCD protection, in all cases, is to be "not reasonable provision for safety."

To come to a conclusion that without doubt not providing the specified RCD protection in BS7671 is, in fact, considered legal, you would need some sort of precedent set in case law which has deemed that lack of RCD protection, in all cases, is to be "reasonable provision for safety."

As you are so absolutely certain about this, we'll await, yet again, your citation of the appropriate legal precedent...... If you cannot provide one, then your claims remain nothing more than your opinion.

As you are so absolutely certain about this, we'll await, yet again, your citation of the appropriate legal precedent...... If you cannot provide one, then your claims remain nothing more than your opinion.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is there any point in asking you to grasp the idea that just because it might be reasonable to do something, that does not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable not to do it?

Is there any point in asking you to grasp the idea that if you deliberately choose to not do what is reasonable, because your predecessor(s) didn't, or because things have changed, or because you are trying to save a few quid, or because you CBA, then you have not done what is reasonable?

Or any point in asking you to explain why you think you're correct to say your logic of "Y is safer than X, it's reasonable to do Y, therefore to do X is not reasonable" applies, but that "Z is safer than Y, it's reasonable to do Z, therefore to do Y is not reasonable" doesn't, simply because BS7671 says you only need to go as far as Y, not Z?

Or any point in asking you to explain why you think that something cannot cross the threshold of "reasonable" if there remains something better unattained?

 

[JohnD]

For something to be illegal, there needs to be a law which says it is. In some cases that's by way of a very clear, precise piece of legislation which says so.

that's fine

So you remind us that the law says "reasonable provision"

The law doesn't say "an RCD is essential for all new sockets, though it is not required for old ones"

So you're just arguing what, in your opinion, "reasonable" means

 

[ban-all-sheds]

According to B-A-S, merely omitting that little piece of green/yellow sleeving on the earth connection of the new socket means that it's not reasonably safe, and therefore illegal. I don't think he really understands the concept of "reasonably safe."

According to PBC, omitting that little piece of green/yellow sleeving on the earth connection of the new socket when it there is no good reason to do so is reasonable. I don't think he really understands the concept of "reasonable".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The law doesn't say "an RCD is essential for all new sockets, though it is not required for old ones"

The law doesn't say "an RCD is not essential for all new sockets because it is not required for old ones"

So you're just arguing what, in your opinion, "reasonable" means

So you're just arguing what, in your opinion, "reasonable" means.

 

[JohnD]

According to PBC, omitting that little piece of green/yellow sleeving on the earth connection of the new socket when it there is no good reason to do so is reasonable. I don't think he really understands the concept of "reasonable".

No, he said "reasonably safe." And he didn't discuss the reasons.

Do you disagree with what he actually said, or just with what you deceitfully pretend he said?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If there are no reasonable reasons for omitting it then omitting it is not reasonable.

 

[JohnD]

you're determined to pretend he didn't say "reasonably safe," aren't you?

 

[PBC_1966]

Is there, or is there not, still a specific RCD exemption in BS7671 for a socket installed for supplying a particular piece of equipment and which is so labeled?

You have to have a sound reason. You can't justify omitting the RCD just because it's convenient to do so.

Please quote the specific regulation in BS7671 which says that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

you're determined to pretend he didn't say "reasonably safe," aren't you?

Are you and he determined to pretend that if what you do regarding a safety feature is to deliberately and unreasonably not implement it then you cannot have been reasonable in your provision for safety?

 

[JohnD]

That's a "yes" then.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ha ha. Well - I ($&%(@#~d up the wording of that question - let's try again.

Are you and he determined to pretend that if what you do regarding a safety feature is to deliberately and unreasonably not implement it then you have been reasonable in your provision for safety?

Sorry.

 

[Anteaus]

I could add my ten cents worth that whilst RCD protection is an advantage, I'm not so sure that the modern style DIN rail CU is an advantage over older models. The older designs clamp the cores far more securely, and are thus far less likely to be the cause of a fire. Since fitting RCD protection to rings will generally mean a new CU, I'm not sure if this is a positive step or not. Some householders with 'Wylex' semi-enclosed wire fuse CUs say they don't want them changed, and I'm starting to see the wisdom behind that. These things will probably still be serviceable in 50 years' time. Not so sure about the modern ones.

I recently returned a CU to the supplier as unfit for purpose, because the busbar tags could only be inserted halfway into the RCBO receptacles. The supplier gave some guff about how everyone else uses them and that is quite OK. I disagreed.

IEE evidently recognise this problem since the new regs require non-inflammable CUs, but I'm not sure that is the right way to tackle the issue. The problem is the low clamping force and difficulty of adequately tightening the plastic-housed terminals. Plus, size variations on isolators and MCBs which lead to poor busbar fit, even when from the same manufacturer.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The poor quality of terminals in CUs has often been lamented here, and you are not alone in feeling that maybe it would have been better to address the root cause of fires in CUs (dodgy connections which overheat) rather than insisting on an enclosure better able to withstand damage from an overheating connection.

 

[PBC_1966]

Is there, or is there not, still a specific RCD exemption in BS7671 for a socket installed for supplying a particular piece of equipment and which is so labeled?

You have to have a sound reason. You can't justify omitting the RCD just because it's convenient to do so.

Did you miss my request in reply to this? Or did you think that responding would not support your view so decide to ignore it? I'll be charitable, assume it was the former, and ask again if BS7671 says anything about needing a specific reason.

I'm not absolutely certain of the answer, by the way, as I don't have a copy. The online references I've found to 411.3.3 quote only the requirements I outlined already, so it would seem that they are the only requirements for the omission of RCD protection, but perhaps there's another part which adds your "sound reason" requirement. If so, let's see it.

It could also mean that they felt that the existing requirement was no longer adequate to make reasonable provision for safety wrt installing new sockets.

It could. But given that they clearly don't regard existing unprotected sockets as any sort of danger, it seems unlikely, otherwise If they suddenly decided that sockets without 30mA protection were no longer to be considered reasonable provision for safety, then they would have suggested coding such in existing installations with something which indicates potential danger. They didn't.

And now you're introducing another opinion that it is about vital safety, and not merely increased safety.

vital. adjective. Of or relating to life.

O.K., if that's the way you intended it. But I'm sure you know it has a slightly different meaning as well.

But you are the one who is trying to claim that it is not illegal without anything to support that claim.

As JohnD first mentioned above, English law (and American, and just about everywhere else which adopted the fundamental principles of English law) works on the basis that you are permitted to do anything which is not expressly forbidden. You don't need laws telling you what you are allowed to do.

What is there one could do to support a claim that something is legal short of pointing out that there is no law which explicitly states that it isn't, and no precedent set in case law regarding interpretation of some act which has deemed it to be so? And in this case, probably not even one case brought to court for somebody fitting a new socket without RCD protection in his own home, unless you know differently.

As I have pointed out already, not making reasonable provision etc is expressly forbidden by law.

Nobody is disputing that - The law states so quite clearly and unequivocally.

What the law does not state clearly and unequivocally is that not providing 30mA RCD protection on a new socket means that you have not made the required reasonable provision for safety. That is your opinion.