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 51 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4688 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

EWR (1989) - just for thought really on the point of decent Engineering Regs in ref. to Acts/Laws/Statute etc

psychicwarrior
There is no requirement under EWR to work to BS7671  (if that is not true, the following probably is rendered  irrelevant).


Scenario: its 2019 and there is no RCD protection for a socket recently added to an existing circuit. An unfortunate event happens (someone is electrocuted and dies; worst case) whilst using that socket and as a result the person who carried out the work is prosecuted, as it is argued the presence of the RCD would have prevented it happening. It must matter what that someone was doing when using that socket, so perhaps they were using a vac and ran over and already damaged cord (struggling here for a plausible scenario of something that could go wrong with a newly added socket/no RCD combo). Of course if someone was using other pre-existing socket then there is no case.


Under the EWR, how is it possible to prove legally (and reliably) that by working to other 'standards' (if EWR makes no reference to BS7671 - as it arguabky should never) at the time [of design/construction], was  the cause of the event and the person carrying out the work is at fault  ?    Is there ever going to be a case possible due to not having RCD - of course having RCD has additional protection benefits, but so does never ever going outside, so as to not get run over by a bus.


Im just using lack of RCD as an example on working to a standard not being BS7671 ...it could just as easily be someone designed, built and constructed a whole installation to their own standards - how is it legally decided those standards were not 'good' enough under the EWR (if BS7671 is not statutory as argubly it should never be) ?


(this is most likely in the wrong forum, but posted here as current practitioners to BS7671 might like to comment...or not :-)  )

Parents
  • 0
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    It is necessary to have some kind of balance here, because "minor works" in particular should not have unexpected consequences for the customer who has to pay (and in some cases may not be capable of doing so). If major work is being considered the situation may be in a different light, but there is a problem with small domestic jobs. Let us say I need to extend a circuit as an example. There is no existing RCD protection, but also no particular risk. As the CU is old I cannot get an RCD or RCBO from the manufacturer, so should I change it, or fit an RCD in the tails? The only route is to ask the customer if they want RCD protection, but getting them to write the answer in a letter might be very difficult.  I have two choices, I can walk away (which probably means a less good DIY job) or I can do as they wish exactly with no RCD, or a possible third choice of the tails RCD at little or no cost. This is an ongoing problem with changes to BS7671, that it could be considered that the current version is the only one that is "safe" by the new definition and anything not complying is therefore "unsafe". Clearly, this is not a satisfactory situation and not one which should be faced by the Electrician. The modified circuit is no less safe than the original and therefore has to be satisfactory for use. However, a Lawyer might well try to argue the opposite, that it is the Electricians duty to make the circuit compliant with the latest edition of BS7671. This must not be allowed to become the case, as the safety cannot be controlled by the Electrician, if nothing else for financial and contractual reasons. The term "Designer" is being applied in a way that is not sustainable, mainly by the CDM regulations, because it implies that ALL the choices for the design are available to him, whereas in the case of Minor Works he has virtually zero choices.


    If it's a place of work (which it must be given the original question - otherwise we are talking about consumer protection legislation instead of EAWR), then this is covered by the "so far as reasonably practicable" I pointed out above ... if it really is a huge cost, that is. In a place of work, this is all balanced against the fact that some fines for H&S breaches are based on company turnover, and executives can also be personally prosecuted.


Reply
  • 0
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    It is necessary to have some kind of balance here, because "minor works" in particular should not have unexpected consequences for the customer who has to pay (and in some cases may not be capable of doing so). If major work is being considered the situation may be in a different light, but there is a problem with small domestic jobs. Let us say I need to extend a circuit as an example. There is no existing RCD protection, but also no particular risk. As the CU is old I cannot get an RCD or RCBO from the manufacturer, so should I change it, or fit an RCD in the tails? The only route is to ask the customer if they want RCD protection, but getting them to write the answer in a letter might be very difficult.  I have two choices, I can walk away (which probably means a less good DIY job) or I can do as they wish exactly with no RCD, or a possible third choice of the tails RCD at little or no cost. This is an ongoing problem with changes to BS7671, that it could be considered that the current version is the only one that is "safe" by the new definition and anything not complying is therefore "unsafe". Clearly, this is not a satisfactory situation and not one which should be faced by the Electrician. The modified circuit is no less safe than the original and therefore has to be satisfactory for use. However, a Lawyer might well try to argue the opposite, that it is the Electricians duty to make the circuit compliant with the latest edition of BS7671. This must not be allowed to become the case, as the safety cannot be controlled by the Electrician, if nothing else for financial and contractual reasons. The term "Designer" is being applied in a way that is not sustainable, mainly by the CDM regulations, because it implies that ALL the choices for the design are available to him, whereas in the case of Minor Works he has virtually zero choices.


    If it's a place of work (which it must be given the original question - otherwise we are talking about consumer protection legislation instead of EAWR), then this is covered by the "so far as reasonably practicable" I pointed out above ... if it really is a huge cost, that is. In a place of work, this is all balanced against the fact that some fines for H&S breaches are based on company turnover, and executives can also be personally prosecuted.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines