Why "No RCD protection on lighting circuit"?

[ban-all-sheds]

That's a non-issue of your own invention. Again.

It's perfectly clear from what the OP said that BS 7671 compliance is the way he chose for Part P compliance, and when you diverged to cover more general compliance issues you were clearly talking about BS 7671 compliance:

the thing I find laughable is to 'make a fuss' about (let alone 'code' as 'potentially dangerous and needing urgent attention') a few feet of non-RCD-protected new buried cable in an installation in which 95% of the buried cables are (without 'fuss') not RCD protected. Similarly with feeling the need to use an RCD socket for an additional one on a circuit which still has maybe a dozen or more non-RCD-protected sockets.

Argue if you like about what code those examples should get, but they have to get something because they are non-compliant.

 

[JohnW2]

That's a non-issue of your own invention. Again. It's perfectly clear from what the OP said that BS 7671 compliance is the way he chose for Part P compliance, and when you diverged to cover more general compliance issues you were clearly talking about BS 7671 compliance:

the thing I find laughable is ....

Argue if you like about what code those examples should get, but they have to get something because they are non-compliant.

The fact that, in my discussion about "more general compliance issues", I said that I find it 'laughable' does not alter the fact that such is how it is (unless/until they change BS7671). I do not think that anyone, myself or otherwise, has suggested that, with BS7671 as it is, one can undertake new work which is non-compliant with current regulations without it being 'non-compliant'. That is how it is. As I wrote in the very first reply in this thread:

... There is no regulatory requirement for a lighting circuit to be RCD-protected, per se, but if there is any new wiring buried <50mm deep in walls, that would invoke a requirement for RCD protection.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Unearthed lighting circuits used to be regarded as reasonably safe - would you regard installing a new one as OK?

Would I, personally, install one today? No. If I were to do so, however, would it be reasonably safe if it met all the requirements for such (no metal switches etc.) which used to be in place before earths on all lighting circuits became the norm? Yes. I don't think that something stops being reasonably safe just because we come along later and add something which makes it a little safer. Obviously there are cases in which evidence turns up showing that something we once believed to be reasonably safe actually is not, in which case our perspective is naturally going to take a sudden shift, but that's a little different.

Same two questions for unshuttered sockets and using water pipes as earth, please.

I have a house full of unshuttered sockets and I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it! O.K., so they're NEMA flat-blade types and not the large, round socket openings of BS546, but as John has said, if you already have a room full of, say, unshuttered 5A BS546 sockets, is it really going to make a significant difference if you add one more? And how would it be any less "reasonably safe" than having a table or desk lamp from which if you remove the bulb there is a live pin sitting there ready to be touched easily by an inquiring finger? Yet although many U.K. electricians might balk at seeing old unshuttered sockets (even to the extent of coding them as "dangerous" as I've seen in the past), they seem quite happy with the traditional BC lampholder, because BS7671 doesn't deprecate it in any way. This is the sort of thing which left me feeling for some time that in the U.K. electrical trade the BS7671-bound way of thinking seems to override common sense and why a more pragmatic approach to these things would be much more reasonable.

As for earthing, there was a specific reason for disallowing earthing to water pipes due to the increasing use of plastic from the 1960's onward, as I'm sure you know. I would certainly be wary of continuing to use such an earth if the pipework were outside of my control, but I wouldn't worry about it if I knew I had a good run of metallic waterpipe as an electrode and it were under my control so that I'd know if it were ever going to be replaced. In fact I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable with 50 or 100 ft. of water-pipe earth electrode than I would with a little 4 ft. rod pushed into the ground - So long as I knew it was going to remain there.

For the layman, then I think there might be a stronger case for highlighting the potential problem, since he might not realize the danger of having metallic pipework replaced with plastic. And that is, after all, the reason for the change in the 14th edition: It's not that using a good length of underground metallic pipe in any way ceased to be a "reasonably safe" earthing method, it's that there was an increasing chance of sections of that pipework being replaced with plastic.

I can, and have more than once, put forward a convincing case that as the law requires "reasonably safe" and does not require compliance with BS 7671, if the continued use of red/black cable is a reasonable thing to do, the law actually requires you to do that.

While I agree entirely that it makes much more sense to continue using red/black to extend or alter an installation which is already red/black, I think you would have a hard time arguing that it's required by law, given that the government's own guidance says that following BS7671 would be one method of showing compliance with Bulding Regulations Part P and that BS7671 says that brown/blue is allowable (actually required, even if only by sleeving).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The fact that, in my discussion about "more general compliance issues", I said that I find it 'laughable' does not alter the fact that such is how it is (unless/until they change BS7671). I do not think that anyone, myself or otherwise, has suggested that, with BS7671 as it is, one can undertake new work which is non-compliant with current regulations without it being 'non-compliant'. That is how it is.

"Coding" has absolutely nothing to do with Part P, and is only, and everything, to do with BS 7671.

So if you don't think there is any wriggle room in BS 7671 compliance "because it's only a little bit and most of what's there already doesn't have RCD protection", why do you think it laughable that if that little bit does not comply it should be coded as such?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

While I agree entirely that it makes much more sense to continue using red/black to extend or alter an installation which is already red/black, I think you would have a hard time arguing that it's required by law, given that the government's own guidance says that following BS7671 would be one method of showing compliance with Bulding Regulations Part P and that BS7671 says that brown/blue is allowable (actually required, even if only by sleeving).

It's quite simple, and logical.

Based on the premise that warning notices are used to alert people to situations with increased risks not decreased ones, the people who wrote BS 7671 clearly thought that mixed colours give rise to an increased risk. Common sense says so too.

So - you are doing work where you are required to make reasonable provision for safety and you have a choice of doing A or B, and the official and common sense classification of B is that it introduces dangers which A does not. Which do you think the law requires you to do? A, or deliberately choosing to introduce dangers by doing B when there is no reasonable need to do so?

 

[JohnW2]

The fact that, in my discussion about "more general compliance issues", I said that I find it 'laughable' does not alter the fact that such is how it is (unless/until they change BS7671). I do not think that anyone, myself or otherwise, has suggested that, with BS7671 as it is, one can undertake new work which is non-compliant with current regulations without it being 'non-compliant'. That is how it is.

"Coding" has absolutely nothing to do with Part P, and is only, and everything, to do with BS 7671. So if you don't think there is any wriggle room in BS 7671 compliance "because it's only a little bit and most of what's there already doesn't have RCD protection", why do you think it laughable that if that little bit does not comply it should be coded as such?

Because it is "laughable" (in common sense terms). Required by BS7671, as she is, but laughable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

When does it stop becoming laughable?

10'? 40'? 2 new switch drops? 10 new ones? 2 new sockets? 5 new ones?

Also, if someone is being paid to inspect work and state whether it complies, why do you think it laughable for him to do what he's paid to do and to tell the truth on his report?

 

[PBC_1966]

In terms of the sort of examples I cited, I don't think it is a question of the amount of time that has passed but, rather, (given that the regs are virtually never retrospective) what proportion of the installation theoretically comes under current regulations.

Indeed, I certainly could not look at most of these examples and say that I would consider something to cease to be reasonably safe after X years, simply because X years have passed since some regulation changed. I'm looking at it on the basis of my knowledge and experience of whether I consider something to be reasonably safe, regardless of whether whatever it is ceased to comply with the IEE Wiring Regulations/BS7671 last year or 40 years ago. If it was reasonably safe in 1980, it will still be just as safe in 1990, and just as safe in 2000, and just as safe today, short of something else changing to affect the situation (as with water-pipe earthing).

Maybe you would like regulations to eventually become retrospective - so that, X years after a regulation has appeared, everything is required to be brought up to that standard? (I can see an argument for that approach).

Required in what sense? British electricians working to BS7671 and in the various schemes are pretty much already insisting that anything installed new has to comply with the current rules, as in providing RCD protection for that new 4 ft. length of cable to a switch even though there are dozens of similar switch drops not so protected.

Would it be a case of refusing to do any job, however small, unless everything within the installation were brought up to current regulations? Imagine, for example, somebody asking an electrician to add a light somewhere and being told that the whole house needs to be rewired to put all the cables into safe zones! If the electrical trade went down that route, I fear it would actually have an adverse effect on safety, as more people who really shouldn't be tackling electrical work would "have a go" instead.

Or perhaps it would be done through Building Regulations any time somebody applied for something. There are actually a few instances of a situation like that here in California, e.g. if you apply for a building permit for certain things now, you're required to change all your plumbung fixtures to the newer water-saving types, even if your work has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Or how about when a property changes hands? The trouble there is that we could, once again, be talking about a complete rewire in many cases to bring everything up to the current regulations, not to mention that I, for one, have very serious objections to the government demanding such things and believe that it should step in only if there is a very clear and apparent danger to the public as a whole. There could be some middle ground of requiring certain things to be done, although when it comes to wiring there would then be a huge debate and much disagreement about what things should or should not be included. (California law says nothing about changing electrical installations, but does have a requirement that when a property is sold it must be fitted with the required smoke detectors and CO alarms, if applicable.)

 

[JohnW2]

When does it stop becoming laughable? 10'? 40'? 2 new switch drops? 10 new ones? 2 new sockets? 5 new ones?

What one feels is laughable is obviously an individual judgement, but it doesn't really matter, since such personal opinions in no way alter 'how it is'.

Also, if someone is being paid to inspect work and state whether it complies, why do you think it laughable for him to do what he's paid to do and to tell the truth on his report?

I don't. I think it laughable that the regulations, as they are, require him/her to do that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

if you apply for a building permit for certain things now, you're required to change all your plumbung fixtures to the newer water-saving types, even if your work has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Do people carefully store them and put them back after the inspector has called?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think it laughable that the regulations, as they are, require him/her to do that.

You think it laughable that the regulations require someone who certifies that he has complied with the regulations to actually have done so?

 

[JohnW2]

I think it laughable that the regulations, as they are, require him/her to do that.

You think it laughable that the regulations require someone who certifies that he has complied with the regulations to actually have done so?

You are being really tedious, presumably in an attempt to 'win' (in your eyes)!

You know jolly well what I'm saying - that I personally find it laughable (and doubt that I am alone) that the regulations are such that the situations we were talking about have to be regarded as non-compliant.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Your premise ignores the reason for the harmonised colours, which is one of safety. Workers in other CENELEC countries will not be confused by the colours, thereby enhancing safety.

But if they're in the U.K. anyway, shouldn't they be aware of the "old" color scheme? It's all very well to say that the new scheme should avoid confusion for those coming from other parts of Europe, but red/black cable is going to be around in British homes for decades to come, so they'll need to know it anyway. Not to mention all the other things which are specific to the U.K. (and sometimes a few other small, British influenced places).

As above, what is required to achieve BS7671 compliance is clear - the issue is what constitutes "reasonable provision ..." in order to achieve compliance with Part P.

If you completely rewired your house today without putting RCD protection on cables less than 2 inches from the surface then clearly it would not be in compliance with the current edition of BS7671, but I would certainly argue that it's still "reasonably safe."

But once the decision to use BS 7671 compliance as the "reasonable provision" then you can't have some vague, emotional non-rules of "it's only a few feet of cable", or "it's only one additional socket".

You can make changes which still make the installation reasonably safe without complying with every last detail of the current edition of BS7671. In fact you've suggested that in one particular case you would need to in order to comply with the law.

 

[PBC_1966]

Code C3 means there is neither an immediate danger or a potential danger so one wonders where one can use code C3? {.....} The same for lack of RCD, it seems C3 unless also no RCD protection where required with BS7671:2001 then it's C2.

What it would seem is as each new version of BS7671 comes out all new stuff is C3 but when next one comes out then it becomes C2. Yet following the pre-BS7671 rules for lighting earths is still only C3?

I think even before the changes, the coding was often a hit-and-miss affair, since I've seen some people code 2 or even code 1 things which I'd never even consider to be more than code 4. I even remember seeing somebody stating that he'd code 1 no earth sleeving, which to me makes a mockery of the whole thing; you might just as well condemn as unsafe anything which doesn't meet every regulation in the latest edition (which I'm sure is the way some people think).

Yesterday something complied, and was reasonably safe. Today it does not. Is it still reasonably safe?

Unless something drastic has changed to make it unsafe, then yes. Or unless we've discovered that something we believed was reasonably safe actually isn't, but in that case it wasn't really safe to begin with, we just thought it was because we didn't know enough about the situation.

What's unreasonable about complying with today's regulations from today?

In some cases nothing. But that doesn't mean that something which was considered reasonably safe yesterday is no longer just as reasonably safe today

In some cases I would say it's unreasonable to comply with every last detail of BS7671 when making a small change and when full compliance makes the job unnecessarily involved and expensive, such as adding one extra socket 4 ft. away from an existing one and having to go back and fit RCD protection for the whole circuit.

If you don't think you need to start today, when do you? Next week? Next month? Next year? How do you decide where the tipping point is?

The Wiring Regulations themselves have defined just such points themselves, e.g. the cut-off date for installing red/black versus brown/blue, or back in the 1960's the cut-off date for using red/white/blue instead of the new red/yellow/blue. Similar things have occurred with the NEC here, for example the 1971 edition specified GFCI protection for outdoor outlets to become effective not from the publication of the 1971 edition but from 1973.

 

[PBC_1966]

Argue if you like about what code those examples should get, but they have to get something because they are non-compliant.

The problem with the recent change is that there is no longer an equivalent of the old code 4, which said, in effect, this doesn't comply with the current rules but don't worry about it. The weakest option now is to "recommend improvement."

I do wonder if this new coding is a consequence of the growing trend in the electrical trade in Britain to condemn anything more than a few years old as being "out of date and in need of replacement." Sadly, if the new C3 is the only thing available to note trivial things like non-RCD protected switch drops or even no earth sleeving, then it can only reinforce this idea.

So - you are doing work where you are required to make reasonable provision for safety and you have a choice of doing A or B, and the official and common sense classification of B is that it introduces dangers which A does not. Which do you think the law requires you to do? A, or deliberately choosing to introduce dangers by doing B when there is no reasonable need to do so?

By extension of that reasoning though, it would clearly be much safer not to have 240V running through cables in the house at all, thus you're choosing a less safe option by installing them than if you had the supply disconnected and used flashlights.

You can choose to do something which improves safety, but that doesn't necessarily mean that by not doing it you do not have something which is reasonably safe anyway.

Do people carefully store them and put them back after the inspector has called?

I imagine so! Same with the low-energy lighting nonsense in new homes. One contractor I was talking with a few months ago said he had a few such fixtures which had already been up in about a dozen different new homes, since they just wait for the final inspection and then put in whatever the householder wanted in the first place.