Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 39 subscribers
  • Views 108 views
  • Users 1 member is here
Options
You may also be interested in

Proposal for Amendment to BS 7671 Regulation 134.1.1

Sergio Fernandez

Regulation to be Amended

134.1.1 (Good workmanship and manufacturer's instructions)
Proposed New Wording

    Good workmanship by one or more skilled or instructed persons and proper materials shall be used in the erection of the electrical installation. The installation of electrical equipment shall take account of relevant manufacturers' instructions as long as they are no less safe than the intent of BS 7671.


Statement of Problem/Reason for Change

    Ambiguity of "Take Account of": The current wording is often interpreted as an absolute requirement to follow Manufacturer’s Instructions (MI), even when those instructions are generic, poorly translated, or based on non-UK earthing arrangements (e.g., ignoring PME risks).

    Safety Hierarchy: Currently, installers face a conflict when an MI contradicts a fundamental safety principle of BS 7671. This proposed wording clarifies that BS 7671 remains the primary safety framework for UK installations.

    Accountability of the Skilled Person: It empowers the "Skilled Person" to exercise professional judgment. If an MI suggests a method that provides a lower level of safety (e.g., regarding RCD selection or earthing), the installer is explicitly authorized to prioritize the higher standard.

Supporting Examples for the "Safety Case"

    EVSE Installations: Where MIs might suggest a lack of RCD protection that contradicts Section 722.

    Terminations: Where MIs for domestic accessories may not account for the thermal effects of high-load continuous use (e.g., EV or Heat Pump circuits).

    Foreign Equipment: Industrial machinery with MIs written for IT or TT systems being installed on a UK TN-C-S system.

As always please be polite and respectful in this purely academic debate.





Come on everybody let’s help inspire the future

Parents

  • While I share you perception that a lot of MI don't make a lot of sense, I'm not sure about applying installation standards (e.g. BS 7671) flatly to the detail of individual items of equipment - sometimes the principles are fundamentally different either for physical or historical reasons - e.g. you couldn't you install a traditional BC lampholder or domestic toaster if you had to directly apply the safety principles contained within BS 7671.

      - Andy.

  • in reply to AJJewsbury
    AJJewsbury said:
    you couldn't you install a traditional BC lampholder or domestic toaster if you had to directly apply the safety principles contained within BS 7671

    If you applied Chapter 41 (Protection against electric shock) strictly to a toaster, it would be probably banned.  You have live/Line, glowing elements accessible to a knife (or a finger) with only "basic insulation" provided by air and a bit of toast.  It’s a manufactured appliance built to BS EN 60335. The safety "intent" is managed within the product standard, not the wiring regs.  You aren't necessarily arguing that the insides of a toaster must meet BS 7671, but that the way it is connected must.  


    The BC lampholder is indeed a "legacy risk" (exposed pins when the bulb is out). However, BS 7671 acknowledges these in specific sections.  Critique suggests that if we follow the "intent" of BS 7671, we'd have to throw away all BC holders.

        The Counter-Argument is the intent of BS 7671 includes Section 511, which accepts equipment complying with an appropriate British or Harmonized standard. Therefore, if the MI says "use a BS EN 61184 lampholder," it is complying with the intent.  BS 7671 includes Section 511, which accepts equipment complying with an appropriate British or Harmonized standard. Therefore, if the MI says "use a BS EN 61184 lampholder," it is complying with the intent.

Reply
  • in reply to AJJewsbury
    AJJewsbury said:
    you couldn't you install a traditional BC lampholder or domestic toaster if you had to directly apply the safety principles contained within BS 7671

    If you applied Chapter 41 (Protection against electric shock) strictly to a toaster, it would be probably banned.  You have live/Line, glowing elements accessible to a knife (or a finger) with only "basic insulation" provided by air and a bit of toast.  It’s a manufactured appliance built to BS EN 60335. The safety "intent" is managed within the product standard, not the wiring regs.  You aren't necessarily arguing that the insides of a toaster must meet BS 7671, but that the way it is connected must.  


    The BC lampholder is indeed a "legacy risk" (exposed pins when the bulb is out). However, BS 7671 acknowledges these in specific sections.  Critique suggests that if we follow the "intent" of BS 7671, we'd have to throw away all BC holders.

        The Counter-Argument is the intent of BS 7671 includes Section 511, which accepts equipment complying with an appropriate British or Harmonized standard. Therefore, if the MI says "use a BS EN 61184 lampholder," it is complying with the intent.  BS 7671 includes Section 511, which accepts equipment complying with an appropriate British or Harmonized standard. Therefore, if the MI says "use a BS EN 61184 lampholder," it is complying with the intent.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines