Twisting words. Wiring , to a previous ed, (14th) is "not necessarily unsafe" This wiring is not unsafe.

I don't think it's logical to assume that wiring done to an earlier edition can automatically be considered to be safe. If that were the case we'd have to accept completely unearthed systems, basic insulation only, even exposed live part on the likes on knife switches - on the basis that that's what the 1st Ed allowed back in 1882.


Certainly a system to earlier standards shouldn't automatically be considered unsafe either - that would be equally illogical.


As others have said, what needs to be done is compare that actual level of safety the installation provides with the level set by current standards - non-conformities with current standards that are inconsequential as far as the safety of the users of the installation are concerned (e.g. red/black instead of brown/blue) don't get a mention, small deviations (such as lack of additional protection where ADS is adequate) attract a C3 code (and the installation could still be considered satisfactory), more serious inadequacies such as lack of ADS (without any alternative such as supp bonding/controlled R2) for exposed-conductive-parts attract a C2 (and thus an unsatisfactory), only things that are immediately dangerous (such as bare line conductors) should be given a C1.


Personally I wouldn't consider the reliance on double/reinforced insulation on a domestic lighting circuit a major deviation from the current BS 7671 - the requirement for effective supervision etc. (412.1.2) only applies where the entire circuit (or installation) uses that approach - so a circuit with a c.p.c. to the 1st point and then continued unearthed from there for the rest of the house wouldn't be subject to that requirement. (Perhaps that's not what the author of those words intended, but going by what's actually written). The difference between a circuit that's all double/reinforced insulation and one that's 99% double/reinforced and 1% ADS is minor in my mind. Likewise the lack of a c.p.c. on a circuit that has no exposed-conductive-parts, while clearly a non-conformity, doesn't to my mind affect the safety of the installation as it stands, especially if reasonable steps have been taken to avoid the replacement of equipment by users of the installation.


   - Andy.

Twisting words. Wiring , to a previous ed, (14th) is "not necessarily unsafe" This wiring is not unsafe.

I don't think it's logical to assume that wiring done to an earlier edition can automatically be considered to be safe. If that were the case we'd have to accept completely unearthed systems, basic insulation only, even exposed live part on the likes on knife switches - on the basis that that's what the 1st Ed allowed back in 1882.


Certainly a system to earlier standards shouldn't automatically be considered unsafe either - that would be equally illogical.


As others have said, what needs to be done is compare that actual level of safety the installation provides with the level set by current standards - non-conformities with current standards that are inconsequential as far as the safety of the users of the installation are concerned (e.g. red/black instead of brown/blue) don't get a mention, small deviations (such as lack of additional protection where ADS is adequate) attract a C3 code (and the installation could still be considered satisfactory), more serious inadequacies such as lack of ADS (without any alternative such as supp bonding/controlled R2) for exposed-conductive-parts attract a C2 (and thus an unsatisfactory), only things that are immediately dangerous (such as bare line conductors) should be given a C1.


Personally I wouldn't consider the reliance on double/reinforced insulation on a domestic lighting circuit a major deviation from the current BS 7671 - the requirement for effective supervision etc. (412.1.2) only applies where the entire circuit (or installation) uses that approach - so a circuit with a c.p.c. to the 1st point and then continued unearthed from there for the rest of the house wouldn't be subject to that requirement. (Perhaps that's not what the author of those words intended, but going by what's actually written). The difference between a circuit that's all double/reinforced insulation and one that's 99% double/reinforced and 1% ADS is minor in my mind. Likewise the lack of a c.p.c. on a circuit that has no exposed-conductive-parts, while clearly a non-conformity, doesn't to my mind affect the safety of the installation as it stands, especially if reasonable steps have been taken to avoid the replacement of equipment by users of the installation.


   - Andy.