I'm designing a re-wire of an existing TN-C-S outdoor facility which includes an EVCP installation pre BS 7671:2018, and changing out the TP+N DB and final circuit wiring for new. Whilst make making a large assumption prior to a site visit, I am not aware of the EVCP being TT install and expect the PEN to be providing the earthing arrangement. As I am providing a new final circuit supply, is this statutory that I remove the PEN and provide an an earth electrode to bring the EVCP upto BS 7671:2018? Irrespective this is best practice and will be employed.
Despite the moniker, BS 7671 "Wiring Regulations" has no statutory force.
If this EVCP is not at a dwelling, then the exemption at 722.411.4.1 would not have been available.
But if you knew about a risk, and did nothing to address it, or at least bring it to the attention of the person responsible to the installation, who's at fault?
It's not so much a matter of fault, but liability. Knowing about a risk takes care of foreseeability, but you would still have to establish that a duty of care existed (you might think that this is obvious, but proceedings have been initiated against me twice for adverse events which had nothing to do with me). Then there is the standard of care, which is to comply as far as is reasonably possible with BS 7671; and let's not forget causation.
But that wasn't the point that I was making above. If the site is a dwelling, then a PME earth may have been used; if it isn't, then it should not have been used.
Despite the moniker, BS 7671 "Wiring Regulations" has no statutory force.
If this EVCP is not at a dwelling, then the exemption at 722.411.4.1 would not have been available.
But if you knew about a risk, and did nothing to address it, or at least bring it to the attention of the person responsible to the installation, who's at fault?
It's not so much a matter of fault, but liability. Knowing about a risk takes care of foreseeability, but you would still have to establish that a duty of care existed (you might think that this is obvious, but proceedings have been initiated against me twice for adverse events which had nothing to do with me). Then there is the standard of care, which is to comply as far as is reasonably possible with BS 7671; and let's not forget causation.
But that wasn't the point that I was making above. If the site is a dwelling, then a PME earth may have been used; if it isn't, then it should not have been used.
