Requirements for AFDD's on new installations following amendment 2?

This what the 'Departures' box is for on the certificate. Unlike RCDs, there is no evidence that these things actually work, nor is there any regime in place to monitor their alleged effectiveness or otherwise. Until any of this changes,I shall refuse to the fit things. They stink of snake oil to me.

You may wish to watch this excellent item on the subject.

www.youtube.com/watch

Your likely correct and I agree with your sentiments, however in court you have to ultimately consider yourself as in precarious position against the underwriting elite 

whjohnson said:

This what the 'Departures' box is for on the certificate.

You are already now on the back foot. 'Departures' from BS EN 7671 suggests that you are conforming to another set of regulations.

As an aside, I'm still strugggling with the responsibility of the PIR (EICR) checklist demarkation zone for 'External condition of intake equipment'

Well, since there is no regime set up to determine the actual effectiveness or otherwise of these things, then we'll never know what may or may not have been prevented upon the deliberate omission of said item will we?

Where will the burden of proof fall? How can they claim without reasonable doubt that a AFDD would actually have saved the day somewhere when they are not measuring and recording? It's hard enough getting hold of reliable stats for fires of all courses, let alone the absence of a AFDD

whjohnson said:

Well, since there is no regime set up to determine the actual effectiveness or otherwise of these things, then we'll never know what may or may not have been prevented upon the deliberate omission of said item will we?

Hang on !!! A standard for these devices exists (BS EN 62606).

Comments that the product standard did not "determine the actual effectiveness of these things" could have been submitted in response to the drafts for public comment on that standard.

There has been an opportunity to do so at least 4 times in the UK - the standard was published originally (after DPC) in 2013, Amendment 1 was published (after DPC) in 2017, and the latest DPCs were 2019 and 2021.

Now we have products ... to a product standard published for 8 years ... that are rumoured not to be "effective"?

If an incident is believed to have been caused by a fault that could have been prevented (note, that doesn't even mean it would have been prevented), then it would be very difficult to show that not complying with 7671 was reasonable.

A requirement published in a standard (to use a device that is covered by another standard) would be accepted by a court as being "reasonably practicable best-practice". You would need to be able to demonstrate (by the production of documentary evidence) that what was put in place (or not) was at least as good.

If an incident is believed to have been caused by a fault that could have been prevented (note, that doesn't even mean it would have been prevented), then it would be very difficult to show that not complying with 7671 was reasonable.

A requirement published in a standard (to use a device that is covered by another standard) would be accepted by a court as being "reasonably practicable best-practice". You would need to be able to demonstrate (by the production of documentary evidence) that what was put in place (or not) was at least as good.