Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 38 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3257 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

BS7671 or Wiring Regulations?

UKPN
There is a guy on here asking "what is the point of the wiring regulations?" He hasnt explained his question, so I would like to expand a little.

If you pass the City and Guilds exam, you are awarded a certificate titled "BS7671 Requirements for Electrical Installations" The term "Wiring Regulations" is not on the sheet.

However, I note that most job requirements ask for 2391/2396/18th Wiring Regulations. Virtually no one talks in the context of " BS7671"

I am wondering if members can give me an idea how the two terms are related, who makes the decisions on "regulations" and who is accountable for those decisions. I have noted errors/confusion on various posts these last few days caused by ambiguity in those regulations and it seems the person who should be protected by these regulations (the customer) is the last to be considered.

Ever the cynic, is the term "wiring regulations" retained  for sentimental reasons or just to sell the book?

Thanks in advance.


Regards, UKPNZap


Parents
  • 0
    gkenyon:
    Dutch of the Elm:
    Hi Graham, I’d like to agree with you with regards to the PRS Regulations, only I think that another, much more onerous interpretation may be easily adopted.  I.e. that the installation is required to meet the requirements of BS 7671:2018. 

    That interpretation is one which a hypothetical (or real!) prosecution could quite reasonably and easily adopt. 

    See Regulation 3(1)(a) of Part 2 (excerpt provided below for clarity), which says “ensure that the electrical safety standards are met. . .”
    78258be0013ed03244186706526bd778-original-image.png

    “Electrical safety standards” are clearly defined in Part 1 as meaning those of BS 7671:2018.

    65aeb5a16a6be7d6f66bdfc504aa9721-original-image-20210106093804-2.png

    I think we all would agree that the wording of the PRS Regulations is poor and ill thought out, but I just wanted to make the point that simply testing in accordance with BS 7671:2018 will likely not be good enough given the wording of this statutory document.  Anyone choosing to interpret the statutory document according to what they think it should have said, is taking quite a risk. 

     


    Well this is interesting. Have a look at my previous post, and then consider that, if the premises has Solar PV or similar grid-connected generation, the ESQCR currently requires BS 7671:2008, so we have two pieces of legislation that are otherwise incompatible ,,, unless there's some scope for interpretation permitted in this area. There is no other interpretation, otherwise conforming to ESQCR means a landlord with local grid-connected generation may not be able to conform to the PRS Regulations (or, vice-versa) - which is clearly nonsense.




    A typical grid-tied solar inverter isn't a switched alternative to the grid; it's connected in parallel with the grid.


    But systems with a battery, as well as the solar panels, may offer an "islanded" mode in case of power cuts.  At that point, it's more like hooking up a small generator to your house, so that definitely needs a changeover switch.


Reply
  • 0
    gkenyon:
    Dutch of the Elm:
    Hi Graham, I’d like to agree with you with regards to the PRS Regulations, only I think that another, much more onerous interpretation may be easily adopted.  I.e. that the installation is required to meet the requirements of BS 7671:2018. 

    That interpretation is one which a hypothetical (or real!) prosecution could quite reasonably and easily adopt. 

    See Regulation 3(1)(a) of Part 2 (excerpt provided below for clarity), which says “ensure that the electrical safety standards are met. . .”
    78258be0013ed03244186706526bd778-original-image.png

    “Electrical safety standards” are clearly defined in Part 1 as meaning those of BS 7671:2018.

    65aeb5a16a6be7d6f66bdfc504aa9721-original-image-20210106093804-2.png

    I think we all would agree that the wording of the PRS Regulations is poor and ill thought out, but I just wanted to make the point that simply testing in accordance with BS 7671:2018 will likely not be good enough given the wording of this statutory document.  Anyone choosing to interpret the statutory document according to what they think it should have said, is taking quite a risk. 

     


    Well this is interesting. Have a look at my previous post, and then consider that, if the premises has Solar PV or similar grid-connected generation, the ESQCR currently requires BS 7671:2008, so we have two pieces of legislation that are otherwise incompatible ,,, unless there's some scope for interpretation permitted in this area. There is no other interpretation, otherwise conforming to ESQCR means a landlord with local grid-connected generation may not be able to conform to the PRS Regulations (or, vice-versa) - which is clearly nonsense.




    A typical grid-tied solar inverter isn't a switched alternative to the grid; it's connected in parallel with the grid.


    But systems with a battery, as well as the solar panels, may offer an "islanded" mode in case of power cuts.  At that point, it's more like hooking up a small generator to your house, so that definitely needs a changeover switch.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines