This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Outstandng 18th Oddities

As far as I recall, we still have some unanswered questions about some of the changes in the 18th. Does anyone have any further information about these? (If not at least this post should ensure the issues aren't forgotten with the demise of the old Forum.)

From memory there was at least:

461.2

The intended meaning of the phrase "neutral conductor is reliably connected to Earth by a low resistance to meet the disconnection times of the protective devices" (given that the Part 2 definition of "Earth" is conductive mass of the Earth rather than any protective conductor or MET; and which protective devices are we talking about anyway?)

Also "protective equipotential bonding is installed" - is this intended to mean it actually is installed, or is installed where it is required? (Otherwise new installations with plastic pipes would need N isolation everywhere)

531.3.6 - if it the intention to prohibit the use of Socket RCDs and similar (e.g. FCU RCDs) for additional protection? (being that the generally comply with BS 7288 etc which appears to have a slightly different set of technical requirements to the standards listed)

537.3.2 - Switching off for mechanical maintenance. Although the definition of mechanical maintenance remains unchanged - so continues to include simple relamping - the requirements have changed considerably to the point they just about require complete electrical isolation. Thus a common lightswitch is no longer suitable for switching off for replacing a domestic lamp. Was this really the intention? Or are the changes aimed more at rotating machinery? Given that most householders would prefer not to plunge and entire floor let alone the complete installation into darkness to replace a simple lamp, should we be installing switches rated for isolation in every room?

any others?

- Andy.

Parents

0 Former Community Member over 6 years ago

ebee:

Do you think that getting a customer to sign anything would absolve you from any legal action?

That is assuming that they agree to sign it in the first place.

I think the answer might be the same whether for a health and safety issue or for a monetary consideration.

On the contrary, I think that if you explain to a customer that doing something the wrong way comes with x, y and z consequences then handing them a piece of paper to sign saying they understand the risks and could pose some threats later down the line, this is more likely to get the customer to double back and re-think what their planning to achieve and for the extra £50 or whatever, the risk isn't worth it.

Just because they can't see it in a day to day life doesn't mean it's not there or working for them.

But as far as legal action goes, with a paper trail which decisively stipulates that the customer had been warned of the outcome and consequences, this will probably help you in court, not necessarily absolve you completely! There's not a lot you can really do other than take the financial hit yourself and do it properly (with possibly challenging the client later on), walk away, or just do it as the customer wants and cover your ass as much as possible.

It's reasonable to suspect that if one person refuses to do the work then the customer may look to another party to perform exactly the same works, and so on until someone actually does it.

Again, I'd merely try to push for things to be done the right way and for the customer to be informed properly and to have these consequences hit home before they just go ahead and do it without thinking. If it's too dangerous then I'd walk away knowing that I'd informed the customer of the dangers and I'm serious about not putting lives at risk because of either a aesthetic or monetary reason.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Former Community Member over 6 years ago

ebee:

Do you think that getting a customer to sign anything would absolve you from any legal action?

That is assuming that they agree to sign it in the first place.

I think the answer might be the same whether for a health and safety issue or for a monetary consideration.

On the contrary, I think that if you explain to a customer that doing something the wrong way comes with x, y and z consequences then handing them a piece of paper to sign saying they understand the risks and could pose some threats later down the line, this is more likely to get the customer to double back and re-think what their planning to achieve and for the extra £50 or whatever, the risk isn't worth it.

Just because they can't see it in a day to day life doesn't mean it's not there or working for them.

But as far as legal action goes, with a paper trail which decisively stipulates that the customer had been warned of the outcome and consequences, this will probably help you in court, not necessarily absolve you completely! There's not a lot you can really do other than take the financial hit yourself and do it properly (with possibly challenging the client later on), walk away, or just do it as the customer wants and cover your ass as much as possible.

It's reasonable to suspect that if one person refuses to do the work then the customer may look to another party to perform exactly the same works, and so on until someone actually does it.

Again, I'd merely try to push for things to be done the right way and for the customer to be informed properly and to have these consequences hit home before they just go ahead and do it without thinking. If it's too dangerous then I'd walk away knowing that I'd informed the customer of the dangers and I'm serious about not putting lives at risk because of either a aesthetic or monetary reason.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Outstandng 18th Oddities

Community Rules & Guidelines