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 :-)  )

  • 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” 

    However, there are some cases where withdrawn standards have to be used.


    For example, ISO 26262 (an automotive functional safety standard) mandates the use of a standardized programming language. ISO 9899 specifies the C programming standard, but there are compilers out there that are used within safety-related systems that implement C as defined within ISO 9899:1990, where the current version is ISO 9899:2018 - and there are no plans to change.


    This does make it "interesting" if an auditor does not understand the reason why a withdrawn version of a standard is referenced in the documentation!
  • 0
    "The 17th ed permitted the use of PME earthing systems to be connected............

    This is the problem, the "wiring regulations" and its disciples and "experts" are so far down their own road they believe its the law. To say it can be referred to in court is like me saying to my neighbour you can drive at 50mph in our 30mph road. Its nothing to do with me, my opinion counts for nothing. 

    Its the ESQCR and HASWA which will be referred to.

    Why the "wiring regulations" keep getting involved in DNO matters baffles me. I thought they got the message when the "improvement to the DNO network"  fiasco was chucked out.  

    5 years on, they havent accounted for one of the other disasters the unearthed steel fuseboxes on TT. Its left to the manufacturers, DNO to advise the public. 


    The latest shambles? PME discon gadgets. 


    No, just look inside the front cover. You must use you own skill and judgement, (and abide by the law}


    Mind how you go, UKPN
  • 0
    UKPN:

    "The 17th ed permitted the use of PME earthing systems to be connected............

    This is the problem, the "wiring regulations" and its disciples and "experts" are so far down their own road they believe its the law. To say it can be referred to in court is like me saying to my neighbour you can drive at 50mph in our 30mph road. Its nothing to do with me, my opinion counts for nothing. 

    Its the ESQCR and HASWA which will be referred to.

    Why the "wiring regulations" keep getting involved in DNO matters baffles me. I thought they got the message when the "improvement to the DNO network"  fiasco was chucked out.  

    5 years on, they havent accounted for one of the other disasters the unearthed steel fuseboxes on TT. Its left to the manufacturers, DNO to advise the public. 


    The latest shambles? PME discon gadgets. 


    No, just look inside the front cover. You must use you own skill and judgement, (and abide by the law}


    Mind how you go, UKPN


    Interesting, then, why the ESQCR directly reference "British standard requirements" isn't it?


    Yes, legislation is paramount in the considerations of consumers, duty holders, and DNOs, but ACOPs and British Standards have a place in the legislative framework too.


  • 0
    I never repeat my posts. The facts are there, your comments on them are welcome.

    Regards UKPN
  • 0
    Except Mike, an RCD socket is not strictly permitted by BS7671, in that the standard is not recognised. You have replaced one deviation with another!
  • 0
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    Except Mike, an RCD socket is not strictly permitted by BS7671, in that the standard is not recognised. You have replaced one deviation with another!


    Not strictly true - the issue is just with BS 7288 style RCD sockets - other arrangements of RCD sockets which incorporate a BS EN 61008 device would be permitted - e.g.
    https://www.ashleyelectrical.co.uk/56-series-13a-250v-1-gang-rcd-protection-without-enclosure-grey  (or indeed a conventional socket RCD that complies with BS EN 61008 or 9 in addition to BS 7288)

      - Andy.


  • 0
    BS 7671 has no provisions for Deviations. There is a however the provision for  a Departure. A Departure is a deliberate act, it has to be no less safe that the requirements of BS 7671 and has to be recorded on the installation certificate, see Regulation 120.3.


    BS 7671 does not recognise  BS 7288 devices for fault protection or additional protection see Regulations 531.3.4.1 and 531.3.4.2. BS 7288 devices in my view cannot be used for additional protection or isolation as in the standard they have to be protected by an upstream RCD. So they are less safe than the provisions of BS7671 and cannot be used as a Departure.
  • 0
    John Peckham:

    BS 7671 has no provisions for Deviations. There is a however the provision for  a Departure. A Departure is a deliberate act, it has to be no less safe that the requirements of BS 7671 and has to be recorded on the installation certificate, see Regulation 120.3.


    BS 7671 does not recognise  BS 7288 devices for fault protection or additional protection see Regulations 531.3.4.1 and 531.3.4.2. BS 7288 devices in my view cannot be used for additional protection or isolation as in the standard they have to be protected by an upstream RCD. So they are less safe than the provisions of BS7671 and cannot be used as a Departure.


    "A BS 7288 socket outlet is better than nothing": discuss.


  • 0
    Chris


    How do you certify compliance with BS 7671 after you have installed a BS 7288 socket? 


  • 0
    Chris Pearson:
    John Peckham:

    BS 7671 has no provisions for Deviations. There is a however the provision for  a Departure. A Departure is a deliberate act, it has to be no less safe that the requirements of BS 7671 and has to be recorded on the installation certificate, see Regulation 120.3.


    BS 7671 does not recognise  BS 7288 devices for fault protection or additional protection see Regulations 531.3.4.1 and 531.3.4.2. BS 7288 devices in my view cannot be used for additional protection or isolation as in the standard they have to be protected by an upstream RCD. So they are less safe than the provisions of BS7671 and cannot be used as a Departure.


    "A BS 7288 socket outlet is better than nothing": discuss.




    Although I'd given up so to speak on this BS7671/ EWR contravention observation (or whatever it is) regarding minor works, on the 'better than nothing' question and still linking into 7671 minor works, then I'd answer with, suggesting perhaps... in some situations. 


    In a bedroom upstairs (context matters?) , where another socket is required not too far from another (or another light point), I can't see that it (or RCD, or AFDD or any future additional protection) is really required for such minor works to be certified... and as said and again,  I'd prefer if BS7671 accounted for these types of situations in general (domestic, commercial etc) as 'departures' doesn't strictly allow it, so one simply cannot sign off to BS7671 if work does not comply fully. There should be no law broken in such cases and we believe none would be.. oooerrr... in a non-virtuous realistic assessment ... and what could go wrong in any case in  such a situation to be more unsafe from other sockets or light points in the same location. 


    Done. :-)


    Best regards


Community Rules & Guidelines