ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[JohnW2]

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.

We've both stated our views, but I don't think I have anything new to say

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

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

Can you not see the oxymoronic nature of that statement?

I guess the IET's own forms for BS7671 must be oxymoronic then:

I being the person responsible for the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing, hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008, amended to .............(date) except for the departures, if
any, detailed as follows.

 

[stillp]

Yes, I think they are.
However there is some difference between itemising departures, which I presume would be few in number, and selecting certain provisions of the standard to use, and ignoring the rest. Interesting though that the form invites the responsible person to certify that he hasn't complied with the standard.

120.3 requires the departures from BS7671 to be noted on the EIC. However it goes on to say "The resulting degree of safety shall be not less than that obtained by compliance with the Regulations". This is significant in that:
(a) it confirms that an installation that includes departures from Parts 3 - 7 does not comply with the Regulations (setting aside for a moment the standard's misuse of the term regulations!); and
(b) it implies that it can be necessary to demonstrate that the degree of safety is not impaired by the departures, i.e. to demonstrate the safety of the departures.

I should be spending some time with a QC soon - I'll see if I can get him to give me an off-the-record opinion.

 

[PBC_1966]

However there is some difference between itemising departures, which I presume would be few in number, and selecting certain provisions of the standard to use, and ignoring the rest.

I really don't see a difference. If you need to itemize departures it must mean that you have not complied with certain regulations, otherwise they wouldn't be departures. If you've chosen not to comply with certain provisions, then surely you have selected certain provisions of the standard to use and ignored others?

 

[stillp]

Well, there are some hundreds of requirements in the standard. I can imaging listing departures from a few, but that's different from selecting only a few of the requirements. There must be some point at which the ratio of compliance to departures makes any claim of compliance to the standard a nonsensical one.

 

[PBC_1966]

There must be some point at which the ratio of compliance to departures makes any claim of compliance to the standard a nonsensical one.

But according to your earlier statements, one can't claim any sort of compliance with a standard without complying with each and every regulation within that standard:

There is no such thing as "compliance with BS7671 in relation to 99% of the issues".

Now you seem to be saying there's some sort of cut-off point for departures.

But even if the number of regulations within the standard with which one complies is fewer than the number with which one doesn't comply, I don't see how that can invalidate a statement such as "I have complied with regulations X, Y, and Z of BS7671."

 

[stillp]

There must be some point at which the ratio of compliance to departures makes any claim of compliance to the standard a nonsensical one.

But according to your earlier statements, one can't claim any sort of compliance with a standard without complying with each and every regulation within that standard:

Yes, there is an inconsistency between the IET forms (and 120.3, and 133.5, and possibly others) and the situation in law.

 

[PBC_1966]

Yes, there is an inconsistency between the IET forms (and 120.3, and 133.5, and possibly others) and the situation in law.

What do 120.3 & 133.5 actually say at the moment?

 

[EFLImpudence]

However there is some difference between itemising departures, which I presume would be few in number, and selecting certain provisions of the standard to use, and ignoring the rest.

I really don't see a difference. If you need to itemize departures it must mean that you have not complied with certain regulations, otherwise they wouldn't be departures. If you've chosen not to comply with certain provisions, then surely you have selected certain provisions of the standard to use and ignored others?

I haven't read the whole debate so apologies if already stated.

A departure (from 7671) is something which complies with another recognised standard; not just something (from 7671) which you choose to ignore.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, there are some hundreds of requirements in the standard. I can imaging listing departures from a few, but that's different from selecting only a few of the requirements. There must be some point at which the ratio of compliance to departures makes any claim of compliance to the standard a nonsensical one.

I agree, but in all the recent exchanges you and I have had, I have been talking of only one 'departure' (and a 'departure' for which I would provide a justifying 'technical explanation') - and you weren't happy with that (you called it 'oxymoronic').

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

A departure (from 7671) is something which complies with another recognised standard; not just something (from 7671) which you choose to ignore.

Where does that come from? I've always thought that a departure was just a departure.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

A departure (from 7671) is something which complies with another recognised standard; not just something (from 7671) which you choose to ignore.

Where does that come from? I've always thought that a departure was just a departure.

I'd like to know that too. Anything which doesn't comply with some particular regulation within BS7671 is, in the normal sense of the word, a departure from BS7671. Who says that it has to comply with some other recognized standard? What sort of standard, and recognized by whom?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not sure now you ask. That's what I've always thought correct.

120.3 & 133.5 - so, if it must be no less safe, it must comply with some other standard.

Just not doing something because you don't want to is definitely not a departure.

 

[JohnW2]

Not sure now you ask. That's what I've always thought correct.

I've never seen that written anywhere, and am not even sure I've seen anyone suggesting it.

120.3 & 133.5 - so, if it must be no less safe, it must comply with some other standard.

I don't see that necessarily follows. At least in theory, it could be 'at least as safe', yet not comply with any Standards at all.

Just not doing something because you don't want to is definitely not a departure.

I'm not suggesting that one should normally "not do something because you don't want to" but, as PBC has said, if one did, then that would definitely be 'a departure' (from the requirements of the regs) in terms of the usual meaning of the word. .. and, as I said in a slightly different way, I had always thought that a departure was simply a departure!

You seem to think that 'departure' is being used in some specialised sense which differs from the everyday use of the word, but that could only be the case if this 'specialised sense' were actually defined somewhere - which I don't think it is.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Just not doing something because you don't want to is definitely not a departure.

Regulation whatever of BS7671 says that new BS1363 sockets must be provided with 30mA RCD protection and you just add onto an existing circuit with 100mA protection? How is that not a departure?

Regulation whatever of BS7671 says you shall identify live & neutral with brown & blue, but you choose to use pink & turquoise instead. How is that not a departure?

And so on.