Chasing cable in a ceiling

[Gigsy]

pages 3,4,9,10 and 12 of approved document P

The approved document is not Statutory Law, just a guide to help you comply with the law. The building regulations on the other hand are the law. This is what is actually written in The Building Regulations and what is on the statute books,


"PART P ELECTRICAL SAFETY


Design and installation


P1. Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installation from fire or injury."


I just hate the way you electricians quote regulations and documents, half the time not related to the particular installation being discussed, and make it out that you are quoting law and scaring people into thinking they are breaking the law and acting unlawfully, when in fact you know very well that approved documents and wiring regulations are not law and purely guidelines.


I believe my cable is safe as it is protected by an RCD. If an unprotected cable run under plaster less than 50mm in a wall is considered safe, because it has RCD protection, then I say a cable run in a ceiling, less than 50mm under plaster is equally as safe.

 

[Leesparkykent]

 

[Pat H]

Page 3 references it. As does page 4. Also on 9 10 and 12.

 

[Gigsy]

Hi - a bit of overnight thinking, for what it's worth. The technique seems novel and seems not specifically referenced to either exclude or include in BS7671, that I could see. However, that doesn't mean BS7671 doesn't apply or has nothing to say. Being concerned about impact to the cable that is now part of the ceiling Chapter 52 Selection and Erection of Wiring Systems seems relevant. Reading 522.6 Impact, it begins as an inclusive statement and so applies in this case, IMHO. Section 522.6.1 says "shall be erected to minimise damage from mechanical stress". Then 522.6.2 says "protection shall be afforded by characteristics of the wiring system". At present what you describe does not satisfy these directives. IMHO a fit for 6.1 could be to have it buried out of harms way and not fixed and concealed just mm below the surface. Or for 6.2 could be to make it using steel conduit or SWA.

Section 522.6.1 says "shall be erected to minimise damage from mechanical stress".

"In continuum mechanics, stress is a physical quantity that expresses the internal forces that neighboring particles of a continuous material exert on each other" wikipedia

My cable is not under any stress.

protection shall be afforded by characteristics of the wiring system

Yes, an RCD

 

[Gigsy]

No it is not specifically referred to in BS7671, because it's not really a viable option.
BS7671 requires that cables should be protected against impact, abrasion, penetration, tension or compression.
One method is to run cables above a ceiling, ensuring that if a cable passes through a joist, that it is more than 50mm from the surface of the ceiling, mechanically protected against penetration from nails or screws, etc, etc.
This cable has not been run above a ceiling so another method of protection is required.
Other methods are earthed sheath, conduit or trunking, mechanical protection or by placing the cable in a location where it will not suffer any damage.
Concealing the cable within the fabric of the ceiling would only comply if there is a guarantee that no one would ever pierce the cable.
So somewhere that no one would put a hanging basket, punch bag, decorative plaster casts, model airplanes, hanging seats, friparies to hang over a bed, Christmas decorations, speakers, fly paper, insectocuters, etc, etc.

BS7671 requires that cables should be protected against impact, abrasion, penetration, tension or compression.

BS7671, is therefore in breach of it's own rules, because it allows a cable to be run less than 50mm in a wall, under plaster when protected by a RCD. If it is good enough for the goose it is good enough for the gander. If they consider it to be safe in a wall, then I consider it to be safe in a ceiling.

 

[Wilko]

Section 522.6.1 says "shall be erected to minimise damage from mechanical stress".

"In continuum mechanics, stress is a physical quantity that expresses the internal forces that neighboring particles of a continuous material exert on each other" wikipedia

My cable is not under any stress.

protection shall be afforded by characteristics of the wiring system

Yes, an RCD

If you believe you are compliant with building regulations then that's great, but surely you would only know if you requested a building reg person to assess and approve your work?

 

[Gigsy]

If you believe you are compliant with building regulations then that's great, but surely you would only know if you requested a building reg person to assess and approve your work?

I think I may give them a call, thank you.

 

[Andy78]

So in a nutshell

OP: I've done something I think might not be right, what do you lot think ?
Forum: We think it is not right
OP: Well what do you lot know, why don't you all shut up ?

Quality thread.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

BS7671 requires that cables should be protected against impact, abrasion, penetration, tension or compression.

BS7671, is therefore in breach of it's own rules, because it allows a cable to be run less than 50mm in a wall, under plaster when protected by a RCD. If it is good enough for the goose it is good enough for the gander. If they consider it to be safe in a wall, then I consider it to be safe in a ceiling.

That is not the case at all.
Cables concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm must be:
a) run in prescribed routes and
b) provided with RCD protection.
Providing RCD protection without running the cable in a prescribed route is not acceptable.
As has already been explained, there are no prescribed routes on a ceiling.

 

[Gigsy]

So in a nutshell

OP: I've done something I think might not be right, what do you lot think ?
Forum: We think it is not right
OP: Well what do you lot know, why don't you all shut up ?

Quality thread.

I didn't say shut up, I simply corrected some miss-information.

 

[Pat H]

Of course it all falls back on common sense. If a cables RCD protected then its protected even if we hang it under a circular saw blade. The 7671 regs are then just prescribing cabling procedures to avoid damaging cables. Safety has been ensured by the RCD. So its more about avoiding the issues damaging the cable will cause. But that is now included in the regs and regs are regs.

 

[Gigsy]

That is not the case at all.
Cables concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm must be:
a) run in prescribed routes and
b) provided with RCD protection.
Providing RCD protection without running the cable in a prescribed route is not acceptable.
As has already been explained, there are no prescribed routes on a ceiling.

Not acceptable in who's opinion? The logic I am using to come to the conclusion that my work is safe is the following. 99.9% of the general population are not even aware of BS7671, wiring regulations. 99.99% of people are not aware of the prescribed zones, to which you refer. Therefore if it is considered to be safe to run a cable in a wall less than 50mm under plaster when protected by a RCD, then it must be considered safe to do the same in a ceiling. The argument that someone could drive a fixing into the cable therefore it is unsafe is negated with the argument that the same can happen in a wall. The argument that it is safe in a wall because they are in prescribed zones is negated by the argument that 99.99% of people are not aware of the prescribed zones.

Most people never consider where the cables are when hanging pictures and christmas decorations etc, out of thoes who do most people think that cables have to run vertically and almost nobody knows of the 150mm from the ceiling and out from corners zones.

 

[Gigsy]

On second thoughts I will swallow my pride and change the cable run, I will drill holes in the joists from below. Thank you everyone for your advice. You have been most helpful.

 

[Gigsy]

Of course it all falls back on common sense. If a cables RCD protected then its protected even if we hang it under a circular saw blade. The 7671 regs are then just prescribing cabling procedures to avoid damaging cables. Safety has been ensured by the RCD. So its more about avoiding the issues damaging the cable will cause. But that is now included in the regs and regs are regs.

I wanted to know if what i had done was safe and legal. To comply with legislation, my cable run has to be installed in such a way as to not cause fire or electrocution. The law does not say anything about avoiding the issues damaging the cable will cause.

 

[Pat H]

You are correct and BS 7671 isn't a statutory document so you aren't legally required to comply with it.
However failure to comply with the BS 7671 recommendations can leave you liable to prosecution under other legislation that points to BS7671.
And I do believe that to meet building regs in acceptable way you have to comply with BS7671.

 

[Gigsy]

You are correct and BS 7671 isn't a statutory document so you aren't legally required to comply with it.
However failure to comply with the BS 7671 recommendations can leave you liable to prosecution under other legislation that points to BS7671.
And I do believe that to meet building regs in acceptable way you have to comply with BS7671.

Then you should read approved document part P. On the 1st page it clearly states there are other ways of complying with the law and that BS7671 regulations are guidelines.

Page 1, "What is an approved document

.......... Note that there may be other ways to comply with the requirements- there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an approved document"

There is no mention in the building regulations regarding BS7671 and although the approved document part P does refer to BS7671, because the approved document is only a guide, there is no legal reason you have to follow the wiring regulations.

 

[westward10]

Who is going to prosecute him the work isn't notifiable. Just another failing of the wishy washy Part P.

 

[Gigsy]

Who is going to prosecute him the work isn't notifiable. Just another failing of the wishy washy Part P.

When you say wishy washy Part P. Below is Part P

PART P ELECTRICAL SAFETY


Design and installation


P1. Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installation from fire or injury."


When i say IS Part P. I mean it IS part P in it's entirety. I think electricians think the apporved document and the wiring regulations are Part P. They are not. Of cousce you have to by law also comply with Part A and Part M, and all the other Parts of the building regs, but as far as Part P is concerned it literally is that one paragraph.

 

[Gigsy]

You are correct and BS 7671 isn't a statutory document so you aren't legally required to comply with it.
However failure to comply with the BS 7671 recommendations can leave you liable to prosecution under other legislation that points to BS7671.
And I do believe that to meet building regs in acceptable way you have to comply with BS7671.

What other legislation????????????????

 

[westward10]

When you say wishy washy Part P. Below is Part P

PART P ELECTRICAL SAFETY


Design and installation


P1. Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installation from fire or injury."


When i say IS Part P. I mean it IS part P in it's entirety. I think electricians think the apporved document and the wiring regulations are Part P. They are not. Of cousce you have to by law also comply with Part A and Part M, and all the other Parts of the building regs, but as far as Part P is concerned it literally is that one paragraph.

It's your house, none of the work was notifiable, in essence it doesn't matter. If Part P had some backbone you wouldn't be allowed to do it, but it ain't so you can.

 

[Gigsy]

It's your house, none of the work was notifiable, in essence it doesn't matter. If Part P had some backbone you wouldn't be allowed to do it, but it ain't so you can.

Thank you, I think I will change it anyways!!

 

[Pat H]

What other legislation????????????????

By law, the homeowner or landlord must be able to prove that all electrical installation work meets Part P, or they will be committing a criminal offence.

 

[westward10]

It is his own house.

 

[Pat H]

Ah so DIY in your own home is ok regardless of regs etc. Ok got that.

 

[westward10]

Ah so DIY in your own home is ok regardless of regs etc. Ok got that.

Well if the work doesn't require notification then yes.

 

[Gigsy]

By law, the homeowner or landlord must be able to prove that all electrical installation work meets Part P, or they will be committing a criminal offence.

What law? Where does it say that. If there is such a law, what legislation is it written in? As we have already discussed part P simply states an installation must not cause fire or electricuation. How do you propose this can be proved by the homeowner. You are spreading more electricians --------.

 

[Gigsy]

Ah so DIY in your own home is ok regardless of regs etc. Ok got that.

Why do you say things that are not correct.The buildings regulations do apply to DIY'ers

 

[Toneyz]

As far as I know there are noggins on all approaches, I don't have access from all sides to find out. The 150mm "permitted cable route" tip has given me an idea that may work, I may be able to put the light off center if i come across one of the walls, before one of the noggins. So I can run cable 15cm down from the ceiling across a wall, even if it does not go to an appliance , is that right?

It needs to be within the 150mm zone

 

[Diddy]

If you want to know if it will work and will it kill you/anyone then the answer is yes it will work and in all probability nobody will die. It does come down to it's your house so do as you wish within our laws. If the law declares that you can amend or extend a simple circuit without any notification then that's it - end of story. Are there potential issues ? YES there are and they have been described to the op.
Where would/could any issues arise - well lets just say you had worked on the circuit and a fire developed in connection with that circuit - NOT necessarily YOUR work - After fire officer declares electrical fault on downstairs lighting circuit your insurance are going to ask for most recent eicr - they may even order an investigation by a qualified "expert" and discover that their had been DIY additions - THEN they would just say - sorry no pay....one unhappy op - All very exaggerated but nothing that has not happened before in some shape or form.
That is 1 scenario of bad news as if you decided to take insurance company to court they would then refer to statutory documents as well as non statutory documents that are referred to in the statutory documents (AKA BS7671)....this is where your interpretation of these documents would be ultimately tested and in most of the professional opinion on here your interpretation would fall short of the intention of these documents.
Now all of the above are concerning cash - if there was loss of life then im afraid the above would happen in a very different court and with more serious outcomes at steak.
At the and of the day all of that is far fetched - but those regulations are essentially there to ensure safety to people,property and livestock - if anybody falls short of these obligations then they open themselves to a load of trouble and a great sob story.

 

[Gigsy]

If you want to know if it will work and will it kill you/anyone then the answer is yes it will work and in all probability nobody will die. It does come down to it's your house so do as you wish within our laws. If the law declares that you can amend or extend a simple circuit without any notification then that's it - end of story. Are there potential issues ? YES there are and they have been described to the op.
Where would/could any issues arise - well lets just say you had worked on the circuit and a fire developed in connection with that circuit - NOT necessarily YOUR work - After fire officer declares electrical fault on downstairs lighting circuit your insurance are going to ask for most recent eicr - they may even order an investigation by a qualified "expert" and discover that their had been DIY additions - THEN they would just say - sorry no pay....one unhappy op - All very exaggerated but nothing that has not happened before in some shape or form.
That is 1 scenario of bad news as if you decided to take insurance company to court they would then refer to statutory documents as well as non statutory documents that are referred to in the statutory documents (AKA BS7671)....this is where your interpretation of these documents would be ultimately tested and in most of the professional opinion on here your interpretation would fall short of the intention of these documents.
Now all of the above are concerning cash - if there was loss of life then im afraid the above would happen in a very different court and with more serious outcomes at steak.
At the and of the day all of that is far fetched - but those regulations are essentially there to ensure safety to people,property and livestock - if anybody falls short of these obligations then they open themselves to a load of trouble and a great sob story.

BS7671 are not referred to in any statutory document, if ou disagree please post a reference to said document.
This is exactly why I asked if I was breaking any regulations and from what I have read on here from you experts, there is not one regulation that I would have broken.
I have now changed the wiring, I bought a long drill bit and drilled in the middle of the joists from below.

 

[Diddy]

Ok here is some light reading for you. As I said Bs7671 is referred to often in court to show compliance or non compliance with the EAW act 1989....Which IS an act of parliament which IS therefore a law. Go and check with the guys who write the rules over at the iet forums. They have had this very discussion in depth so you can see the outcome of debates from over the years on there too.
At the end of the day many of us may not agree with interpretations of regulations and even weather something is legal or not. We can only offer professional opinion...which is what you originally sought. Now you can and have challenged us over our view over the job posted...You are getting a "free" opinion from professionals who's business it is to stay abreast of these regulations day in day out all of our working lives.
Now I have no idea what you do for a living but how would you feel if I asked you about a different way of doing your job and you told me I was wrong...that this is not the correct way to do it because of XYZ...how would you feel with my limited experience of your job that I then tell you that your free advice is wrong and that you are looking at your job all wrong.....Does that come across as a well thought out plan to you ?
As I say the IET discuss the regulations for breakfast lunch and supper.....they may even quote other regulations and the relevant "law tree" that "could" be used against you in court.

 

[westward10]

Well done for altering it. The problem here, if it was a problem in the first place is that BS7671 doesn't refer to zones across ceilings, or floors for that matter is because it is not an expected route to be taken and hence there is no reason to refer to it. I for one found it quite entertaining, no offence.

 

[westward10]

Ok here is some light reading for you. As I said Bs7671 is referred to often in court to show compliance or non compliance with the EAW act 1989....Which IS an act of parliament which IS therefore a law. Go and check with the guys who write the rules over at the iet forums. They have had this very discussion in depth so you can see the outcome of debates from over the years on there too.
At the end of the day many of us may not agree with interpretations of regulations and even weather something is legal or not. We can only offer professional opinion...which is what you originally sought. Now you can and have challenged us over our view over the job posted...You are getting a "free" opinion from professionals who's business it is to stay abreast of these regulations day in day out all of our working lives.
Now I have no idea what you do for a living but how would you feel if I asked you about a different way of doing your job and you told me I was wrong...that this is not the correct way to do it because of XYZ...how would you feel with my limited experience of your job that I then tell you that your free advice is wrong and that you are looking at your job all wrong.....Does that come across as a well thought out plan to you ?
As I say the IET discuss the regulations for breakfast lunch and supper.....they may even quote other regulations and the relevant "law tree" that "could" be used against you in court.

No one is taking him to court and the E&WR don't apply to him, he asked for advise, got it and is changing the method he has used.

 

[Gigsy]

Ok here is some light reading for you. As I said Bs7671 is referred to often in court to show compliance or non compliance with the EAW act 1989....Which IS an act of parliament which IS therefore a law. Go and check with the guys who write the rules over at the iet forums. They have had this very discussion in depth so you can see the outcome of debates from over the years on there too.
At the end of the day many of us may not agree with interpretations of regulations and even weather something is legal or not. We can only offer professional opinion...which is what you originally sought. Now you can and have challenged us over our view over the job posted...You are getting a "free" opinion from professionals who's business it is to stay abreast of these regulations day in day out all of our working lives.
Now I have no idea what you do for a living but how would you feel if I asked you about a different way of doing your job and you told me I was wrong...that this is not the correct way to do it because of XYZ...how would you feel with my limited experience of your job that I then tell you that your free advice is wrong and that you are looking at your job all wrong.....Does that come across as a well thought out plan to you ?
As I say the IET discuss the regulations for breakfast lunch and supper.....they may even quote other regulations and the relevant "law tree" that "could" be used against you in court.

I value all of your advice, I changed the circuit in accordance with the advice given in this forum. Thank you all for your valuable advice.
I do not know what objections you had regarding my original plan? The regulations people stated my original plan was contravening had no relevance to my design, but I changed it anyway.

In regard to the law and BS7671 and the electricity at work act. The electricity at work act does not apply as the work was done in my home, and so long as my design is safe there is not a lawyer in the land that can touch me, regardless of anything in BS7671. If however I designed a dangerous circuit, then yes it could be proved my design was dangerous by quoting the regulations in BS7671.

 

[Gigsy]

I think the problem with electricians is that they think they are the only people who are capable of reading and understanding BS7671. Maybe it is because they had difficulty understanding the regulations and needed them explaining to them is the reason they do not think other people are capable of understanding them. Jo Bloggs is perfectly entitled to design and install alterations and additions to a circuit, and can quite easily design and install a circuit safely armed with a copy of the on-site guide. Electricity is not difficult to understand. It is not difficult to put a wire in a hole and tighten the screw!

 

[westward10]

Quit while you are ahead

 

[Pat H]

And if a DIYer gets it wrong and a family member or guest is injured or worse?
Or as is often the case a fire is caused. Then explaining to the inurance company becomes an issue.

I can drive down the motorway with my eyes closed. As long as I don't hit anyone alls well.

 

[westward10]

I would leave it Pat, I have actually tried to defend his actions in light of people throwing laws etc at him and he has changed what he has done but he will do this till the cows come home.

 

[Gigsy]

Well done for altering it. The problem here, if it was a problem in the first place is that BS7671 doesn't refer to zones across ceilings, or floors for that matter is because it is not an expected route to be taken and hence there is no reason to refer to it. I for one found it quite entertaining, no offence.

And if a DIYer gets it wrong and a family member or guest is injured or worse?
Or as is often the case a fire is caused. Then explaining to the inurance company becomes an issue.

I can drive down the motorway with my eyes closed. As long as I don't hit anyone alls well.

The same applies to if an electrician gets it wrong, then they cause a fire or kill someone. Like I said it is not difficult to understand, it is very hard to get it wrong. Everything is standardised, all the hard work has been done for us and is all there for everyone to read in the on site guide!

 

[westward10]

Go to bed.

 

[David M]

The same applies to if an electrician gets it wrong, then they cause a fire or kill someone. Like I said it is not difficult to understand, it is very hard to get it wrong. Everything is standardised, all the hard work has been done for us and is all there for everyone to read in the on site guide!

No, installing a cable and an accessory might be quite simple to a competent person. But testing that circuit, interpreting and understanding the results, what they mean and why they are required, requires training and experience. If an electrician makes a mistake then usually that fault is found during the inspect & test and can be rectified before the circuit goes into service. Therefore it is very extremely unlikely a fully qualified experienced electrician will put into service a potentially dangerous electrical installation.

Being a qualified electrician means more than just following the onsite guide to install a cable!

 

[Gigsy]

No, installing a cable and an accessory might be quite simple to a competent person. But testing that circuit, interpreting and understanding the results, what they mean and why they are required, requires training and experience. If an electrician makes a mistake then usually that fault is found during the inspect & test and can be rectified before the circuit goes into service. Therefore it is very extremely unlikely a fully qualified experienced electrician will put into service a potentially dangerous electrical installation.

Being a qualified electrician means more than just following the onsite guide to install a cable!

I have a multi function tester m8, they aint hard to use and the results from the tests are simple to understand. If you wire the circuit correctly there is a very small chance there will be a fault in the circuit, stop trying to scare people.

 

[David M]

I have a multi function tester m8, they aint hard to use and the results from the tests are simple to understand. If you wire the circuit correctly there is a very small chance there will be a fault in the circuit, stop trying to scare people.

My post has nothing to do with scaring people! The post was not a personal attack on you either! You may well be fully competent in electrical installations and also able to use and understand the required tests and equipment, I know nothing about you or your capabilities.
But what I do know is this, the vast majority of folk who may well be competent enough to do a simple socket / light install will not be conversant with the required inspection and testing. They may install the circuit and everything is just tickety boo. Testing is there not only to make sure there is no fault, but also to determine that during normal service or in the event of a fault there is adequate protection. I doubt that your average D.I.Yer will have any clue what this means.

So I will re-iterate!! its not scare mongering, its fact!

So you stop spouting on about Mr D.I.Yer is just fine to go and do an electrical install, because that is bulls..t.

 

[Diddy]

I would leave it Pat, I have actually tried to defend his actions in light of people throwing laws etc at him and he has changed what he has done but he will do this till the cows come home.

Go to bed.

INDEED YOU DID - I was a little peeved by your "Leave it he has changed it attitude" But noticed you are a "Top poster" so backed off and left you too it lol.
What I was trying to add to this thread was the "What if" factor and to open the op's eyes into why these regulations are there - what actually happens if they are not followed AND where and why a court would/could and does use the regs. But anyway I haven't got time to pee about with self important people weather they be op or top posters lol. Peace out im out of the thread as there is just no point........It's hard becoming a top poster innit !!

 

[Darkwood]

May I remind everyone not to lower the tone by having a pop at each other, if you believe a post is offensive then report it, if you disagree with someone then reply in a adult manner and defend your corner without dragging the thread down to cheap attacks of other members like name calling or baiting responses.

If you feel you cannot interact with a particular member without lowering the tone then either block them so you cannot see their posts or just move on, if we keep seeing this of any member then staff will step in (Note the OP is having a break for similar reasons).

Thread closed .. it will be re-opened if the OP returns and decides he wants to continue the discussion.