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
    There will always be cases where the installation is not to current regs, be that wiring, or gas regs or thickness of loft insulation - we do not suddenly eject the residents into the street or freeze them, unless there is an immediate danger, and building regs (and so by extension part P) does not require anything to be done to an existing structure, unless it is actually very dangerous. Further and where it is not reasonable/possible to meet current standards,  any alterations to an existing building must not make the safety or energy efficiency  provisions any worse than before.


    Of course, all shiny and new is preferable, but it is certainly not a legal requirement  of part P - and the full rewire  would be disproportionate  for the moving of one socket situation you describe. (though not as part  of adding an extension or a larger refurbishment)


    You may install an RCD socket to replace an older one onto  an existing hot wire fused ring  for example, yes if the ring was installed today,  it would be a non -compliance, but no one in their right mind would say you should not do it,  because it is clearly an improvement, not a worsening of the situation.

    Indeed adding a new socket, and removing a trailing extension lead across the floor would again be a clear safety improvement.

    So on the paperwork it is a deviation -"addition of RCD protected socket to existing non-protected wiring" .

    I see no issue - and I suspect those who do are not realistic about how things are at the shallow end where money is not unlimited.

    Mike.

Reply
  • 0
    There will always be cases where the installation is not to current regs, be that wiring, or gas regs or thickness of loft insulation - we do not suddenly eject the residents into the street or freeze them, unless there is an immediate danger, and building regs (and so by extension part P) does not require anything to be done to an existing structure, unless it is actually very dangerous. Further and where it is not reasonable/possible to meet current standards,  any alterations to an existing building must not make the safety or energy efficiency  provisions any worse than before.


    Of course, all shiny and new is preferable, but it is certainly not a legal requirement  of part P - and the full rewire  would be disproportionate  for the moving of one socket situation you describe. (though not as part  of adding an extension or a larger refurbishment)


    You may install an RCD socket to replace an older one onto  an existing hot wire fused ring  for example, yes if the ring was installed today,  it would be a non -compliance, but no one in their right mind would say you should not do it,  because it is clearly an improvement, not a worsening of the situation.

    Indeed adding a new socket, and removing a trailing extension lead across the floor would again be a clear safety improvement.

    So on the paperwork it is a deviation -"addition of RCD protected socket to existing non-protected wiring" .

    I see no issue - and I suspect those who do are not realistic about how things are at the shallow end where money is not unlimited.

    Mike.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines