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 3230 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


  • 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.


  • 0
    A typical grid-tied solar inverter isn't a switched alternative to the grid; it's connected in parallel with the grid.

    I think Graham was off by one - reg 22 is probably the one he was aiming for...

    22.—(1) Without prejudice to regulation 21, no person shall install or operate a source of energy which may be connected in parallel with a distributor’s network unless he—
    (a) has the necessary and appropriate equipment to prevent danger or interference with that network or with the supply to consumers so far as is reasonably practicable;
    (b) has the necessary and appropriate personnel and procedures to prevent danger so far as is reasonably practicable;
    (c) where the source of energy is part of a low voltage consumer’s installation, complies with British Standard Requirements; and


    (my emphasis)


      - Andy.
  • 0
    Well, yes and no Andy.


    I meant both Regs require BS 7671 compliance for the consumer installation ... it's just that Reg 21 covers switched alternatives, such as UPS or a stand-by generator etc., whereas Reg 22 covers situations like standard Solar PV.


    It's just the example I used, was Solar PV.


    A straight Solar PV would definitely be Reg 22, but a solar-PV system with a storage battery and island-mode capability is Reg 21 and Reg 22.


    Noting:
    Switched alternative sources of energy

    21.     Where a person operates a source of energy as a switched alternative to a distributor’s network, he shall ensure that that source of energy cannot operate in parallel with that network and where the source of energy is part of a low voltage consumer’s installation, that installation shall comply with British Standard Requirements.



  • 0
    This sort of thing is quite common, and legislation often refers to outdated techniques and obsolete documents, including other bits of legislation.

    It is indeed the sort of thing that keeps lawyers and expert witnesses on their toes;  and the reason is exactly to avoid the problem of 'ambulatory legislation' (if I'd written it  this would be called "requirement creep"). It does leave some odd loopholes.

    If you do not do this you could have a situation where nearly all rented housing is made illegal overnight because JPLE 64 suddenly required AFDDs to be fitted in the 19th edition, for example. (surely not.. )

    It is unfortunate that the 'clock rate' of parliament and the legal profession (where 'fast change ' is about 30 years), and that of the engineering world  (where slow change is about 5 years) are wildly out of step. The results can be comical and / or frustrating.


    If you'd like another recent example the 2020 Brexit agreement refers to obsolete web browsers  and encryption techniques from ~ 1997 ?

    Mike
  • 0
    Note that ESQCR and the Rented Sector regulations are statutory instruments as opposed to acts of parliament. They are approved by the relevant Secretary of State after being drafted by his/her department, then get a (literal) nod-through in parliament. All the usual second reading, line-by-line committee stage, back and forth between commons and lords, debates etc that Acts get are skipped. Their power comes from suitable enabling powers in primary legislation; for example the Housing and Planning Act 2016 gives the SoS powers to make suitable regulations regardling electrical installations in the rented sector.


    Such regulations are often remarkably badly drafted.
  • 0
    Hi.  


    Bringing this back to PRS Regulations, what do people interpret to be the meaning of "electrical safety standards" then?  It seems unduly optimistic that a "BS 7671:2018" could actually mean BS 7671:2002 for example.  And the requirement for the installation to comply with "electrical safety standards," whatever the determined meaning be, relates to the installation, not just the test procedure.


    Should a tester feel secure in providing a clear EICR (i.e. with no C1s or C2s) for a rental property with an electrical installation that was erected to say, BS 7671:2002, and which is missing key features of later versions of BS 7671 such as a metal consumer unit, and (maybe) AFDDs? 


  • 0
    mapj1:

    It is unfortunate that the 'clock rate' of parliament and the legal profession (where 'fast change ' is about 30 years), and that of the engineering world  (where slow change is about 5 years) are wildly out of step. The results can be comical and / or frustrating.


    Ah, but you have forgotten about judges - case law really does keep lawyers (and other members of the judiciary) on their toes. One minute the law means this, and the next minute it means that. ?


  • 0
    Dutch of the Elm:

    Hi.  


    Bringing this back to PRS Regulations, what do people interpret to be the meaning of "electrical safety standards" then?  It seems unduly optimistic that a "BS 7671:2018" could actually mean BS 7671:2002 for example.  And the requirement for the installation to comply with "electrical safety standards," whatever the determined meaning be, relates to the installation, not just the test procedure.


    Should a tester feel secure in providing a clear EICR (i.e. with no C1s or C2s) for a rental property with an electrical installation that was erected to say, BS 7671:2002, and which is missing key features of later versions of BS 7671 such as a metal consumer unit, and (maybe) AFDDs? 


     


    It's interesting that the regular inspection and testing by a competent person does not have to conform to the "electrical safety standards" ... the duty to comply with the "electrical safety standards" is left purely with the landlord as stated !


    So yes, the tester should feel secure in that - whether the landlord is happy with it is another issue, and one for the contract between the landlord and the competent person, I guess.


  • 0
    Dutch of the Elm:

    Hi.  


    Bringing this back to PRS Regulations, what do people interpret to be the meaning of "electrical safety standards" then?  It seems unduly optimistic that a "BS 7671:2018" could actually mean BS 7671:2002 for example.  And the requirement for the installation to comply with "electrical safety standards," whatever the determined meaning be, relates to the installation, not just the test procedure.


    Should a tester feel secure in providing a clear EICR (i.e. with no C1s or C2s) for a rental property with an electrical installation that was erected to say, BS 7671:2002, and which is missing key features of later versions of BS 7671 such as a metal consumer unit, and (maybe) AFDDs? 


     


    The legislation is quite clear what it means at least on that point - "the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018" with a footnote that specifies the ISBN-13:978-1-78561-170-4 - so I don't see any wiggle room there at all.


    What's it's muddled up completely is whether the fundamental requirement is to pass an 18th EICR or actually meet every requirement of the 18th regulations - it says both yet we know they're fundamentally different. As it stands a it seems to me a landlord could get a satisfactory EICR and yet still be hauled up in court by a malicious tenant because the wiring had red & black cores.

      - Andy.


  • 0
    AJJewsbury:
    Dutch of the Elm:

    Hi.  


    Bringing this back to PRS Regulations, what do people interpret to be the meaning of "electrical safety standards" then?  It seems unduly optimistic that a "BS 7671:2018" could actually mean BS 7671:2002 for example.  And the requirement for the installation to comply with "electrical safety standards," whatever the determined meaning be, relates to the installation, not just the test procedure.


    Should a tester feel secure in providing a clear EICR (i.e. with no C1s or C2s) for a rental property with an electrical installation that was erected to say, BS 7671:2002, and which is missing key features of later versions of BS 7671 such as a metal consumer unit, and (maybe) AFDDs? 


     


    The legislation is quite clear what it means at least on that point - "the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018" with a footnote that specifies the ISBN-13:978-1-78561-170-4 - so I don't see any wiggle room there at all.


    What's it's muddled up completely is whether the fundamental requirement is to pass an 18th EICR or actually meet every requirement of the 18th regulations - it says both yet we know they're fundamentally different. As it stands a it seems to me a landlord could get a satisfactory EICR and yet still be hauled up in court by a malicious tenant because the wiring had red & black cores.

      - Andy.




    I don't think it's that clear Andy.


    The requirement is for the landlord to ensure the installation meets BS 7671:2018, and, where an inspection shows that it might not meet BS 7671:2018, rectify the relevant defects.


    BUT


    There is nothing in the legislation that says the competent person needs to check for compliance with BS 7671;2018 ... that would therefore have to be a matter of contract between the person ordering the inspection and testing, and the competent person engaged to do the work.


Community Rules & Guidelines