That's what I said.
Socket Wiring, Horizontally or Under Floor
- Thread starter matthew tubbs
- Start date
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 6,833
- Reaction score
- 1,010
- Country
I never said it didn't apply, they can do what they like as far as I'm concerned, but at the end of the day it's not notifiable so the prescribed process for certification doesn't apply, therefore it's down to them to take enforcement action of they find non notifiable work that's unsafe.
How they do that is up to them as long as it's at their expense.
Even if it was notifiable, I would avoid getting in touch with them as much as possible.
Oh and while we're on topic, I'm quite enjoying being a numpty thanks very much, it's saving me about 4000 pounds.
They can insist on proof that it complies with Part P.
They would be perfectly within their rights to refuse to give you a completion certificate if they had no evidence that the work complied. They don't need to find examples of non-compliance.
It wouldn't be.
Part P is an adminstration process with the possible requirement of a document to say the installation has been designed and installed in a way that ensures safe operation and maintenance.
As an administration process it relates only to the proper and correct documents being produced as required. It allows the person doing the work to decide on which standards of design and installation are used. The obvious and almost always accepted without question standard is BS7671. Using BS7671 avoids the need for the installer to justify the standards (s)he uses will ensure the safety that Part P requires.
From time to time BS7671 is ammended when a potentially unsafe situation has been created even though the current version of BS7671 was fully complied with
It depends what you mean by 'safe'.
You cannot make something that was considered safe unsafe by changing a rule.
Electricity is dangerous.
You cannot make something that was considered safe unsafe by changing a rule.
Electricity is dangerous.
The change from plastic inflamable consummenr units to metal non-inflamable consumer units is the latest change of rule that may introduce hazards that are not present with plastic ( electrically non conductive ) consumer units.
Well, both are presumably considered 'safe' (when installed as per regulations).
Plastic CUs are just as 'safe' as they were and so are metal ones for those who already had them.
We cannot force everyone to replace their plastic CUs because they burn and ban metal CUs because they coduct electricity.
The only thing wrong is the badly written regulation and the adoption of the example 'steel' as the only option.
There must be other materials which meet the unknown criterion of non-combustible.
Plastic CUs are just as 'safe' as they were and so are metal ones for those who already had them.
We cannot force everyone to replace their plastic CUs because they burn and ban metal CUs because they coduct electricity.
The only thing wrong is the badly written regulation and the adoption of the example 'steel' as the only option.
There must be other materials which meet the unknown criterion of non-combustible.
"Considered" (which I suppose means "thought to be" or "deemed to be") is probably the crucial word there.
Changes in rules/regs obviously cannot alter 'how safe' something actually is. However rules/regs can be (and sometimes are) revised when it is realised/discovered that something which previously was 'considered' ('thought to be') 'safe' actually wasn't/isn't 'safe' - or if something which previous was 'safe' ceases to be so because of changes in the world.
There are countless examples - unlimited exposure to X-Rays or other radiation, heavy metals (mercury, lead, etc,), asbestos, opium, tobacco, thalidomide etc. were at one time 'considered' to be 'safe', but rules/regs (and advice/practices) were subsequently changed/introduced when such was found not to be the case. Similarly, earthing to metal water pipes was once considered to be 'safe', until rules/regs had to be changed because of the emergence of plastic pipes.
The other thing, of course, that views on the desirable/expected level of 'safeness' vary with time. Even when hazards/risks were known in the past, but felt to be 'acceptable risks', subsequent changes in 'our' expectations have often caused rules/regs to change to reflect the fact that 'we' no longer regard the risks concerned as 'acceptable'
Kind Regards, John
That's true but it dosn't really apply to this subject, does it?
The trouble, as I alluded, is the word 'safe'.
Is there anything in the last edition of 7671 which is now thought to be 'dangerous' and must be upgraded?
The trouble, as I alluded, is the word 'safe'.
Is there anything in the last edition of 7671 which is now thought to be 'dangerous' and must be upgraded?
Not so far
I think it probably does apply - and, as I said, I think the problems relate to both words ("considered" and "safe").
"... and must be upgraded" is a concept which is rarely, if ever, invoked by BS7671 (it may have happened with VOELCBs).
Take the example of the wretched 'metal CU' business. Plastic CUs are obviously no less safe today then they were 2, 5 or 25 years ago. However, for better or worse, 'they' have now decided that they no longer consider them to be 'safe' - which (no matter what the preamble of BS7671 may say) essentially means that they now don't believe that they were ever 'safe'. However, as with virtually all of the regs, they accept that there is no requirement for that decision to be implemented retrospectively (i.e. don't say "...and must be upgraded").
It doesn't necessarily make all that much sense. Whilst it obviously makes practical sense to allow a 'transition period', I am a little surprised that they do not specify deadlines (maybe long into the future) by which all installations have to be upgraded to be compliant with a new regulation.
Kind Regards, John
Plastic CUs have not changed because of any electrical problems; merely because one fire brigade has said they often catch fire when a fire has started. The reaction to this has been excessive and unnecessary.
I think there were/are plastic CUs which would meet the requirements. Why has this been totally disregarded with everyone jumping to the conclusion that metal ones must be fitted?
Why do they not try to get wooden staircases banned?
I think there were/are plastic CUs which would meet the requirements. Why has this been totally disregarded with everyone jumping to the conclusion that metal ones must be fitted?
Why do they not try to get wooden staircases banned?
I do wonder how good was the research behind the London Fire Brigade's decision to press for metal consumer units ( sorry non-flammable ones ).
Last edited:
I think that all of us here (and, I suspect, most relevant people in the wider world) would agree with that. In fact, one assumes that even the LFB don't believe that plastic CUs were any more 'safe' in the past - but, rather, that they have suddenly decided/'discovered' that (in their opinion) they have 'never' been 'adequately safe'!
I think people have probably been left with little choice. The drafting of the regulation is so poor that there is no way of determining whether a CU constructed of anything other than ferrous metal would be compliant.
The regulation seems ridiculous at a number of levels. Quite apart from the question of whether it was needed at all (I personally don't think so), we all know the problem with "non-combustible", and nor does the regulation even address the matter of fire 'containment'. It would seem that a steel CU would satisfy the reg even if it was totally covered in holes just small enough to satisfy the IP requirements!
... and you are a great champion of the desirability of avoiding the unnecessary presence of earthed metal in the environment, and that is presumably a particularly valid consideration when the metal is so close to lots of potentially live electrical parts that sometimes have to be worked on.
Kind Regards,
John