ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[ban-all-sheds]

When, as in most situations (and certainly Part P), there is not a legal requirement to comply with the Standard, I would have thought that the person arguing that (s)he had complied with the law would be free to go through all issues, one at a time, in each case producing whatever argument (any argument) they had to support their belief that the work was compliant with the law. If one were doing that, I see no reason why they could not cite 'compliance with BS7671' as their argument in relation to 99 out of 100 issues, and some other argument in relation to the 100th issue.

Isn't the point that there simply is no such thing as 'compliance with BS7671' unless the compliance is total?

It would be a pretty silly Court (which I would hope could be successfully challenged by a half-decent lawyer - at appeal if necessary) who would conclude that 99 of the issues were 'adequately/reasonably safe', by virtue of compliance with BS7671, provided that the 100th issue was also compliant, but that those 99 (BS7671-compliant) issues wlould suddenly become 'not adequately/reasonably safe' if the 100th issue were not BS7671-compliant!

I don't think that anybody is saying that they would suddenly become that, only that the justification of "compliance with BS 7671" could not be used piecemeal?

No doubt the lawyer could successfully (and profitably) argue, one at a time, that those 100 things were fine, but maybe each one would have to be examined individually?

 

[bernardgreen]

Isn't that, basically, why PME is not allowed for petrol stations?

Yes, the impedance of a buried tank is very low, sub 0.1 Ohm so with a Neutral fault over 2000 amps could flow through the pipe work to the tank.

And also the reason why, until sometime around 1980, that PME was not allowed on overhead open wire rural supplies in case the Neutral snapped between poles.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think that anybody is saying that they would suddenly become that, only that the justification of "compliance with BS 7671" could not be used piecemeal?

That is what some people are saying, but I don't necessarily agree. In response to the question about "how do you propose to comply with Part P", I would think one could say something along the lines of "by compliance with the requirements of BS7671 in relation to all matters other than ABC, and the technical argument for ABC being compliant with Part P is XYZ" - assuming, that is, that one did have a good 'technical argument'!

One sees a similar thing in relation to some pharmacopoeial and generic medicines. In response to the implicit question "why should we licence this medicine?" one will often see a response along the lines of "because it complies with the approved specification (whatever) in all respects other than that it contains colourant (or preservative, or whatever) X rather than colourant (or whatever) Y, and the evidence that this change does not affect the safety or efficacy of the medicine is ..... "

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Perhaps you could John, and it might convince some, but it would not convince a court. There is a legal precedent, that states IIRC "compliance with a standard means compliance with all its normative provisions".

That would make sense if (fairly unusually) the law required compliance with the Standard - was that perhaps the situation with the case that established that precedent?

When, as in most situations (and certainly Part P), there is not a legal requirement to comply with the Standard, I would have thought that the person arguing that (s)he had complied with the law would be free to go through all issues, one at a time, in each case producing whatever argument (any argument) they had to support their belief that the work was compliant with the law. If one were doing that, I see no reason why they could not cite 'compliance with BS7671' as their argument in relation to 99 out of 100 issues, and some other argument in relation to the 100th issue.

It would be a pretty silly Court (which I would hope could be successfully challenged by a half-decent lawyer - at appeal if necessary) who would conclude that 99 of the issues were 'adequately/reasonably safe', by virtue of compliance with BS7671, provided that the 100th issue was also compliant, but that those 99 (BS7671-compliant) issues wlould suddenly become 'not adequately/reasonably safe' if the 100th issue were not BS7671-compliant!

... but I should re-iterate that, in the specific context of this discussion ('safe zones'), I would not attempt to produce an argument that work was 'reasonably/adequately safe' if it were not compliant with BS7671 as regards 'safe zones' - so, in this context, the above would be moot.

Kind Regards, John

No. You are misunderstanding the issue. Where the law requires conformity to a standard then clearly it must be complied with. What you seem to be unwilling to comprehend is that the courts have decided that, if someone were to claim that their product is safe because it complies with a standard, then they must comply with all the normative provisions of that standard. If they choose to cherry-pick some of those normative provisions, then they have to prove, not only that they comply with those selected provisions, but that those provisions they have selected are on their own sufficient to ensure that the product is safe.
There is no such thing as "compliance with BS7671 in relation to 99% of the issues".

 

[JohnW2]

What you seem to be unwilling to comprehend is that the courts have decided that, if someone were to claim that their product is safe because it complies with a standard, then they must comply with all the normative provisions of that standard. If they choose to cherry-pick some of those normative provisions, then they have to prove, not only that they comply with those selected provisions, but that those provisions they have selected are on their own sufficient to ensure that the product is safe.

Although I'm obviously not aware of details of the case which you say created a precedent, I'm afraid that I'm still not convinced about the general situation.

I obviously agree that one could not demonstrate compliance with Part P on the basis only of compliance with a self-selected subset of regulations in BS7671. However, if I could tell a court (or whoever) that some electrical work was "fully compliant with the requirements of BS7671 other than regulation XYZ", and that "the technical explanation as to why non-compliance with that regulation did not detract from the fact that the work was safe enough to satisfy Part P is ...." - then (provided of course, that it accepted that 'technical explanation') I would expect any sensible court to be satisfied. If not, why not?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

"fully compliant with the requirements of BS7671 other than regulation XYZ"

Can you not see the oxymoronic nature of that statement?

Do you believe it is possible to be a little bit pregnant, or nearly a virgin?

 

[PBC_1966]

Back to the legalities; if you choose to claim that you have used BS7671 to demonstrate compliance with Part P, then you must conform to all its normative requirements.

But who is going to try and use that argument if he is not complying or intending to comply with all the regulations contained within BS7671?

Perhaps you could John, and it might convince some, but it would not convince a court. There is a legal precedent, that states IIRC "compliance with a standard means compliance with all its normative provisions".

I don't think that's being argued. Yes, if want to say "This complies with standard XYZ123" then obviously it has to comply with every regulation or condition contained within that standard. But the only "standard" we're talkng about here is the completely undefined and somewhat vague one of making "reasonable provision for safety." That does not mean following BS7671 to the letter, even if it might mean that certain basic things must be done (proper overcurrent protection etc.) which are also a requirement of BS7671.

When, as in most situations (and certainly Part P), there is not a legal requirement to comply with the Standard, I would have thought that the person arguing that (s)he had complied with the law would be free to go through all issues, one at a time, in each case producing whatever argument (any argument) they had to support their belief that the work was compliant with the law. If one were doing that, I see no reason why they could not cite 'compliance with BS7671' as their argument in relation to 99 out of 100 issues, and some other argument in relation to the 100th issue.

Exactly. If if were being suggested, say, that one had not provided adequate overcurrent protection for cables leading to a possible fire risk, one might use as a defense the fact that in respect of cable sizes, bundling, derating for ambient temperature etc. that aspect of the installation complied with the relevant provisions of BS7671. I don't see how that means that you can't then use some defense other than something contained within BS7671 for some other aspect of the installation which is being queried.

Isn't the point that there simply is no such thing as 'compliance with BS7671' unless the compliance is total?

Yes, if you want to say "This installation complies with BS7671." But it doesn't have to be full compliance with every regulation within it to be able to say that "This installation complies with regulations X, Y and Z contained within BS7671."

That is what some people are saying, but I don't necessarily agree. In response to the question about "how do you propose to comply with Part P", I would think one could say something along the lines of "by compliance with the requirements of BS7671 in relation to all matters other than ABC, and the technical argument for ABC being compliant with Part P is XYZ" - assuming, that is, that one did have a good 'technical argument'!

There is no legal requirement to follow BS7671, but that doesn't stop one referring to specific parts of BS7671, surely?

Look at the original legislation for Part P for an example, and the reference to the definition of a "special location" within BS7671. Just because it referred to one very specific definition contained within BS7671 that didn't mean that everything had to comply with BS7671 in full, did it?

No. You are misunderstanding the issue. Where the law requires conformity to a standard then clearly it must be complied with. What you seem to be unwilling to comprehend is that the courts have decided that, if someone were to claim that their product is safe because it complies with a standard, then they must comply with all the normative provisions of that standard.

Yes, but in this case nobody who had not followed BS7671 in full would be trying to claim compliance with the standard. He would be defending individual aspects of the work, and simply referring to BS7671 for specific things where the work complied with that particular requirement contained within BS7671.

By the way, does anyone know what any of the national standards from other EU countries have to say about prescribed cable zones, or if the concept even exists in all of them?

 

[stillp]

The person claiming compliance with a specific provision of BS7671 would not only have to prove that claim of compliance but would have to prove to the court that compliance with that provision, taken separately from the rest of the standard, was in fact safe.

 

[JohnW2]

"fully compliant with the requirements of BS7671 other than regulation XYZ"

Can you not see the oxymoronic nature of that statement?

Nope ... unless, that is, you regard any qualified statement as being oxymoronic ...

"All of the wiring in this installation uses harmonised colours cable, other than the immersion heater circuit, which uses red/black cable"
"All of the accessories connected to this ring final circuit are to BS1363, other than a 20A DP switch"
"This bathroom fully satisfies all of the requirements for omission of supplementary bonding, other than ...."
"You have fully satisfied the examiners in relation to all sections of this exam other than section 4, which you will need to re-take"
"This car has fully satisfied the requirements of this MOT test, other than that it needs one new tyre"
etc. etc.

Do you believe it is possible to be a little bit pregnant, or nearly a virgin?

Nope - because you are talking about dichotomies. However it is possible that "all the women who work in this office are currently pregnant (or virgins), other than Mary".

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I do regard those statements as oxymorons.

By the way, can I have Mary's phone number please

 

[JohnW2]

The person claiming compliance with a specific provision of BS7671 would not only have to prove that claim of compliance but would have to prove to the court that compliance with that provision, taken separately from the rest of the standard, was in fact safe.

Yes, but if one had complied with, say, all-but-one of the requirements of BS7671, it would very often/usually be 'self-evident' (judges seem to like that phrase ) that this did not negate the interpretation of compliance with everything else.

This is all so hypothetical, but if it ever did get to court, I'm pretty sure that the Court would be happier for one to refer briefly to all the aspects of the work which were compliant with the requirements of BS7671, giving 'technical explanations' only in relation to those aspects of the work which were not BS7671, than to spend days or weeks going through every cable and every circuit etc. etc. giving 'technical explanations from first principles' (without reference to BS7671) as to why they were 'acceptably/reasonably safe'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

I'm pretty sure ...

You often are John. But you're wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

I do regard those statements as oxymorons.

Interesting. Just to be clear, does that you regard any "All .... except" or "All ... other than" or "All ... unless" etc. statements as oxymorons? If so, there must be an awful lot of oxymorons about!

Interestingly, I've just been glancing through BS7671 and, whilst there are a lot of regulations which are qualified statements, they usually reverse the order of clauses - i.e. "Except when ...., all ... shall ....", "Other than when, all ... shall" etc. Does that change your view as to whether the statement is an oxymoron? In other words, whilst you think that "All of the wiring in this installation uses harmonised colours cable, other than the immersion heater circuit, which uses red/black cable" is an oxymoron, might you perhaps not say the same of "Other than the immersion heater circuit, which uses red/black cable, all of the wiring in this installation uses harmonised colours cable" ?

By the way, can I have Mary's phone number please

I think she's ex-directory (or maybe doesn't even have a phone), hence her currently unique status in relation to her work colleagues

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm pretty sure ...

You often are John. But you're wrong.

Who knows? I do know that courts are very sensitive and concerned about how much court time is taken up by a case.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Yes, and hence those courts would be unlikely to accept an argument that only certain provisions of a standard had been used, because it would take too long to justify the use of only part of the standard.