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 4696 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
    I am glad you understood the point I was making PW, because it is important. It seems that the consensus above thinks that the responsibility for safety lies with the electrician and said minor works, and in order to meet this responsibility must work exactly to the latest edition of BS7671 . If I lived in a suitable ivory tower (Parliament, Savoy Place perhaps) I could easily assume this is reasonable. However, unless the industry is completely regulated and controlled in an effective way this is not reasonable at all because there will always be someone else who will not comply and therefore can charge less. What has actually just been said is that a minor extension to a circuit will require (or at least a full assessment of) the fitting of Surge suppression, AFDD and RCD to the circuit somehow. The only reasonable way to do this is to fit an additional small (metal) CU, meaning that the work is now notifiable for part P as a new circuit has been created. It probably takes the cost of a new socket to £500, which is ridiculous to the customer, so he gets a mate to do it. One has to see the unintended consequences of the changes to BS7671, that older installations (more than maybe 5 years) cannot be extended or changed at any reasonable price. After Covid the economy will simply not withstand this mindset, spending other peoples money is very easy for people with a great deal, jobs, and homes.


    Unless the law enforces exact compliance with BS7671 on any work at all, the electrician cannot be expected to convince the public it is necessary, it is realistically impossible. Enforcement via any other route such as EAWR or whatever cannot be effective because the public at large do not know that it exists, and it is unreasonable to pass the responsibility to electricians.
Reply
  • 0
    I am glad you understood the point I was making PW, because it is important. It seems that the consensus above thinks that the responsibility for safety lies with the electrician and said minor works, and in order to meet this responsibility must work exactly to the latest edition of BS7671 . If I lived in a suitable ivory tower (Parliament, Savoy Place perhaps) I could easily assume this is reasonable. However, unless the industry is completely regulated and controlled in an effective way this is not reasonable at all because there will always be someone else who will not comply and therefore can charge less. What has actually just been said is that a minor extension to a circuit will require (or at least a full assessment of) the fitting of Surge suppression, AFDD and RCD to the circuit somehow. The only reasonable way to do this is to fit an additional small (metal) CU, meaning that the work is now notifiable for part P as a new circuit has been created. It probably takes the cost of a new socket to £500, which is ridiculous to the customer, so he gets a mate to do it. One has to see the unintended consequences of the changes to BS7671, that older installations (more than maybe 5 years) cannot be extended or changed at any reasonable price. After Covid the economy will simply not withstand this mindset, spending other peoples money is very easy for people with a great deal, jobs, and homes.


    Unless the law enforces exact compliance with BS7671 on any work at all, the electrician cannot be expected to convince the public it is necessary, it is realistically impossible. Enforcement via any other route such as EAWR or whatever cannot be effective because the public at large do not know that it exists, and it is unreasonable to pass the responsibility to electricians.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines