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 4721 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
    Looking at the responses, diffrent people have diffrent views or their interpretation of a word/words is diffrent from others.


    Leading engineering technology often and does lead time wise the standard/s for that item and to me ultimately down to the person/s that are defined as the designer, installer and inspector along with the proper defined contract arrangement between the purchaser of that install/inspection and the provider.


    If people believe that the actions they take are appropriate and compliant with the appropriate statute legislation then great, job done.

    If there is a fire, electric shock, explosion then the people involved will then have to demonstrate that their action/s were not a root cause leading to the event or a major contributor.


    Or if its a loss of revenue/service on the purchasers side then a civil claim against those parties would also have to be defended.


    I mentioned before on this thread, people that make decisions that would be appear to conflict with regulations and sentiment of BS7671 have they spoken with their insurance provider to see what they would think?


    Let me give you an example, Im fortunate? to have a car that tyres are over £300 each, when replacing them for the first time, I was told by tyre fitter only one single manufacturer and tyre size and type could be fitted because of a single letter "M" stamped on the tyre after the speed rating. This meant the tyre was alledgedly designed exactly for that vehichle by both the vehicle manufacturer and tyre manufacturer!! Tyre fitter said they could fit same size and speed rating of tyre for £150 each but I should check with my insurer if I wanted the less expensive ones. I did that and they basically said and actually provided in writing, " You as the owner of the vehicle can do whatever you wish, and fit any tyre that you wish, but if you make a claim and we believe that the tyres, braking distance, suspension was the root cause we will not pay out or provide cover as you did not fit the manufacturers recommended parts".So I had a choice to make..... and I fitted the correct and expensive ones.


    I think this thread is getting to the end of the road, psychicwarrier, why not just do whatever you want and believe to be correct, and if there is ever a incident with your work Im sure you will be able to explain your actions were just and appropriate and didnt cause the fatality or building to burn down.


    GTB
Reply
  • 0
    Looking at the responses, diffrent people have diffrent views or their interpretation of a word/words is diffrent from others.


    Leading engineering technology often and does lead time wise the standard/s for that item and to me ultimately down to the person/s that are defined as the designer, installer and inspector along with the proper defined contract arrangement between the purchaser of that install/inspection and the provider.


    If people believe that the actions they take are appropriate and compliant with the appropriate statute legislation then great, job done.

    If there is a fire, electric shock, explosion then the people involved will then have to demonstrate that their action/s were not a root cause leading to the event or a major contributor.


    Or if its a loss of revenue/service on the purchasers side then a civil claim against those parties would also have to be defended.


    I mentioned before on this thread, people that make decisions that would be appear to conflict with regulations and sentiment of BS7671 have they spoken with their insurance provider to see what they would think?


    Let me give you an example, Im fortunate? to have a car that tyres are over £300 each, when replacing them for the first time, I was told by tyre fitter only one single manufacturer and tyre size and type could be fitted because of a single letter "M" stamped on the tyre after the speed rating. This meant the tyre was alledgedly designed exactly for that vehichle by both the vehicle manufacturer and tyre manufacturer!! Tyre fitter said they could fit same size and speed rating of tyre for £150 each but I should check with my insurer if I wanted the less expensive ones. I did that and they basically said and actually provided in writing, " You as the owner of the vehicle can do whatever you wish, and fit any tyre that you wish, but if you make a claim and we believe that the tyres, braking distance, suspension was the root cause we will not pay out or provide cover as you did not fit the manufacturers recommended parts".So I had a choice to make..... and I fitted the correct and expensive ones.


    I think this thread is getting to the end of the road, psychicwarrier, why not just do whatever you want and believe to be correct, and if there is ever a incident with your work Im sure you will be able to explain your actions were just and appropriate and didnt cause the fatality or building to burn down.


    GTB
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines