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 4683 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 :-)  )

  • 0
    A few years back (well OK it seems only a few years to me), I rewired some domestic properties with BS3036 rewireable fuses in the consumer unit. At the time they were considered "safe".

    MCBs were about - plug in wylex type for example and we`d hear phrases like "Oh they protect you against electric shock/electrocution".

    The mindset of must have an RCD was in its infancy.

    Years later I would be horified to think of considering someone wanting a non RCD circuit.

    Standards and perceived risk change and likewise our opinions.

    The 240 Bang Bang test was the major test of many installers - still is today by some.


    Ref EAWR - someone said to me the Regs state phrases like you must/must not rather than at work you must/must not. Even though the regs themselves are called "at work" the provisions do not mention "at work" therefore apply in non workplaces too.

    Secondly, if you invite someone into your home to do a job (painter, joiner, plumber, carpetfitter) then if becomes his workplace for a time so the EAWR applies anyway.


    I would guess we need to consider what is an appropriate recognised standard today (such as BS7671) not what was considered quite good a few years back.

    BS 7671 is a voluntary code of practice not a statute (except under contract law or that new landlords thingy example) but would we knowingly risk not working to it?
  • 0
    psychicwarrior:

    Hello gkenyon


    What 'assumption' are you referring to please?


    And what of it is very dangerous ?


    In the context of not having RCD (ignore upcoming possible AFDD) on a circuit where 'minor works' take place e.g being an additional socket, on an installation circuit that complies in all other respects to current regs and entirely to previous (discon times OK, bonding OK etc) ....my contention is that it it ought to be possible to have some mechanism to sign such works off under bs7671. Its unrealistic to suggest a new consumer unit/db (or perhaps rcbo not poss) for some minor works and its not unsafe in all honesty is it (accepting it could be *more* safe with the additional protection).


    It feels that I stand in a minority on this one and there is unlikely to be provision, so I will have to stand down (reluctantly :-) )


    Perhaps there is no room for allowing for 'safe' pragmatism in bs7671 certification of work.



     


    The following statement in essence:



    If working on an installation built to previous edition Regs and carrying out 'minor works', then it should still be possible to sign off such work as compliant with BS7671 if in the judgement of the engineer it is not less safe than when it was built.



    The reason being as I said that risk assessments have to be reviewed when things change - including standards.


    So, an installation that was acceptable in a workplace may no longer be acceptable now.


    The correct course of action is to raise with the duty holder when designing the "minor works" and in effect let them decide on risk vs cost. In the case of no RCD, the duty holder may be OK with insisting on the use of PRCDs for portable equipment, rather than a replacement CU - which is probably acceptable provided there's a procedure in place for checking people actually do use the PRCDs, and the PRCDs are checked regularly (user check and if appropriate regular test).



     


  • 0
    Let's not forget that there is a section in both EICs and MEIWCs for departures +/- a risk assessment. To my mind, that allows for the extended circuit or replacement circuit, on a non-compliant CU.
  • 0
    Alan Capon:

    Another thought, I f you look at the BSI website, you will find that previous versions of BS7671, for example BS7671:2008 + A3, are marked as “withdrawn”: 


    “Status : Superseded, Withdrawn   Published : January 2015  Replaced By : BS 7671:2018+A1:2020” 


    I am not sure how far you would get legally, installing or inspecting based on a withdrawn standard. 


    Regards,


    Alan. 


    Given that some legislation refers directly and specifically to versions of BS 7671 that are now withdrawn, I might have though that you might actually be legally safer working to an older standard...

       - Andy.


  • 0
    Let's not forget that there is a section in both EICs and MEIWCs for departures +/- a risk assessment. To my mind, that allows for the extended circuit or replacement circuit, on a non-compliant CU.

    Different issue - you only sign-off the new work, not the existing.

       - Andy.
  • 0
    Thank you @gkenyon for the clarification.


    Thank you @everyone for the contributions...  'we' sometimes get challenged with situations where pragmatism seems set against idealistic [for good reason usually]  requirement of Regulation.


    For me, this was all focussed on proposing some mechanism in all contexts to being able to sign off  under BS7671, 'minor works' (e.g. one new socket or a lighting point in an existing run) when additional protection (RCD and perhaps coming AFDD at some point)  is not present and arguably/defensibly not pragmatic and uneccessary (so long as there is a check on virtue mania :-) ). Having a RCD makes it more safe (in most cases), but not having one is not [always] unsafe. It was not about doing so when adding a brand new circuit or a new board, ie not minor works, or more involved work where an EIC would be usual (or even when it may be reasonable to swap out and MCB for RCBO). As I say, it appears I am in a minority on this view and that's how it goes.


    Always best wishes to all.

  • 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.
  • 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.

  • 0
    @davez   That feels like a pragmatic view to me


    @mapj   Another paragmatic view.   There is no official provision for 'deviation' on paper work  (unless you are referring to 'departures' which I thought was for a different purpose strictly.  Perhaps one adds in their own box, but making some official provision allows one to officially (which is arguably not possible currently) sign off compliance with deviation box filled in, whether, in the example, it is a RCD socket used (where the situation makes it acceptable to use)  or a plain one.


    Regards
  • 0
    Quite right, slightly sloppy words from me there

    Take the   IET model forms for minor work  as opposed to NICIECs  or whoever's bespoke one


    Look at part 5
    I certify that the work covered by this certificate does not impair the safety of the existing installation and the work has been designed, constructed, inspected and tested in accordance with BS 7671:2018 (IET Wiring Regulations) amended to ............... (date) and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, at the time of my inspection, complied with BS 7671 except as detailed in Part 1 above.
     

    now part 1 asks you to list

    Details of departures, if any, from BS 7671:2018 for the circuit altered or extended  ...


    and make
    Comments on (including any defects observed in) the existing installation



    I see no reason not to say

    'existing wiring has no RCD protection - so RCD socket fitted to afford user protection on new work' or words like that,

    and comment ' rest of building will need new consumer unit to meet current standards  when rewired ' or something like .

    M.

Community Rules & Guidelines