18th edition - any point?

[Percyprod]

With the 18th edition coming out, will this just mean more rules broken? Judging by the number of questions on this forum most electricians struggle with the 17th edition! I assume any installations wired under the 17th edition are now dangerous? Mmm better think about rewiring my stables. Only joking, you know me and the regs!

 

[Andy78]

It will only mean more rules broken by those who choose to ignore them.

 

[Percyprod]

Very true, there's always someone who thinks the rules don't apply to them.

 

[oracle]

It's been said before but let's make the Regs mandatory and prosecute the bastards that break the law .

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I think Lawyers would have a field day interpreting BS7671.

 

[Percyprod]

It'll never happen. Like mobile phone use and any other law I suppose.

 

[suffolkspark]

Percy!!! Where have you been?

 

[Wilko]

Hi Percy - I've spend this arvo doing test questions preparing for the exam, only because the Dentist was fully booked. The old book had 496 pages and the new ones got 560 pages of fun .
A small-but-big change is the metallic fixings for surface mounted cables and I bet that's going to be ignored by a few.

 

[ruston]

Hi Percy - I've spend this arvo doing test questions preparing for the exam, only because the Dentist was fully booked. The old book had 496 pages and the new ones got 560 pages of fun .
A small-but-big change is the metallic fixings for surface mounted cables and I bet that's going to be ignored by a few.

So would you rather of gone to the Dentist ?

 

[Octopus]

It will only mean more rules broken by those who choose to ignore them.

Or DIYers who don't think the regs apply to them ...

 

[Percyprod]

Aw Suffolkspark, you missed me! I'm touched. Yes I know you all think I am anyway.

 

[Octopus]

I think Lawyers would have a field day interpreting BS7671.

That's assuming they can understand it in the first place ..........

 

[Midwest]

I think Lawyers would have a field day interpreting BS7671.

Ohh you, I'm sure you've said before, its all there in black & white.

 

[Percyprod]

Should be 'rather have gone to the dentist, not 'rather of gone'.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

It's been said before but let's make the Regs mandatory and prosecute the bastards that break the law .

I'd now be doing a life stretch for failure to apply a mixed colour label. The worst thing that could possibly happen is Bs7671 becoming statutory. There's not one spark on here that hasn't at some point left a job with a minor,not safety related departure from the regs due to a memory lapse. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Andy78]

Should be 'rather have gone to the dentist, not 'rather of gone'.

You can't underestimate the importance of doing things as they should be done according to accepted standards can you really ?

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

I am just waiting for new year and some poor old person to be told they need a full rewire due to not complying with 18th edition. Can see it now, i actually heard somebody(assumed to be an electrician) In toolstation recently telling somebody else at the counter that they don't want that rcd spur for the garage but should instead get a small consumer unit to comply with the 18th edition. The bloke even offered to come quote for the job! made me chuckle! I gave the counter staff a dirty look and he just grinned.
At a job today, customer pressured into having a rewire as all the lights are on one circuit and they only wanted 2 dimmers fitted which means a bit of chasing out for deeper Back boxes! the last 'electrician' kept finding fault to justify more expensive work.
As for

 

[Percyprod]

I would have said 'You can't underestimate the importance of doing things to the accepted standard, which is how they should be done'.

 

[Octopus]

I would have said 'You can't underestimate the importance of doing things to the accepted standard, which is how they should be done'.

You've changed your tune ...................

 

[Andy78]

I would have said 'You can't underestimate the importance of doing things to the accepted standard, which is how they should be done'.

Exactly

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I think ‘understate’ would be more appropriate.

 

[oracle]

I'd now be doing a life stretch for failure to apply a mixed colour label. The worst thing that could possibly happen is Bs7671 becoming statutory. There's not one spark on here that hasn't at some point left a job with a minor,not safety related departure from the regs due to a memory lapse. Be careful what you wish for.

How would you feel if they scrapped the Road traffic act because some drivers have a memory lapse?

Laws are for protecting us, you will always find criminal negligence. Other countries, first and third world, manage to legistrate their wiring regulations.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Problem with other countries legislating their wiring Regulations, is all the ones cited focus more on protecting the livelihood of electricians than on safety.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

How would you feel if they scrapped the Road traffic act because some drivers have a memory lapse?

Laws are for protecting us, you will always find criminal negligence. Other countries, first and third world, manage to legistrate their wiring regulations.

I'm not sure the analogy really applies, Bs7671 is so complex, how are you going to appropriate 'punishment' for departures....will the consequences of breaking the law by failure to apply a sticker carry the same penalty as failure to provide an adequate earthing system?
EICR's will be a legal minefield, I really believe those calling for 7671 to be law really haven't thought through the potential consequences.

 

[Andy78]

How about keeping it simple and expanding the scope of the EAWR to apply to anyone who picks up a screwdriver ?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

How about keeping it simple and expanding the scope of the EAWR to apply to anyone who picks up a screwdriver ?

I have to comply with EAWR if I assemble an Ikea book case?

 

[westward10]

I'm not sure the analogy really applies, Bs7671 is so complex, how are you going to appropriate 'punishment' for departures....will the consequences of breaking the law by failure to apply a sticker carry the same penalty as failure to provide an adequate earthing system?
EICR's will be a legal minefield, I really believe those calling for 7671 to be law really haven't thought through the potential consequences.

Unless measures are put in place providing an earthing system is a legal requirement under the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Should you fail to do so and the worse happens you have no defence in a court of law as it is an Absolute Requirement.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Unless measures are put in place providing an earthing system is a legal requirement under the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Should you fail to do so and the worse happens you have no defence in a court of law as it is an Absolute Requirement.

As would be failure to provide a mixed colour label. If a DIYer was electrocuted trying to put up a new light on the partial rewire you recently completed no doubt his lawyer will be making the case that your failure to apply a sticker (as now required by law) was the reason he was killed.
Like I said, those calling for 7671 to be statutory need to really think it through

 

[Octopus]

As would be failure to provide a mixed colour label. If a DIYer was electrocuted trying to put up a new light on the partial rewire you recently completed no doubt his lawyer will be making the case that your failure to apply a sticker (as now required by law) was the reason he was killed.
Like I said, those calling for 7671 to be statutory need to really think it through

Utter rubbish ...............

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Utter rubbish ...............

I think you may have taken the statement as it is currently law, what I was in fact meaning is that if those who want 7671 to be statutory then it will be law. I can see that wasn't clear in my post. If 7671 in it's entirety does become law then the above scenario will be highly likely.

 

[Intoelectrics]

With the 18th edition coming out, will this just mean more rules broken? Judging by the number of questions on this forum most electricians struggle with the 17th edition! I assume any installations wired under the 17th edition are now dangerous? Mmm better think about rewiring my stables. Only joking, you know me and the regs!

The 18th edition like the 17th and the 16th before that and so forth is about improvements. Its about gathering data, implementing the latest technology and making improvements to the "best practice" of electrical installation, remedial and repair works. Why is that so bad? some of it will seem really silly as it may contradict what was accepted in previous editions. But the underlining aim of any regulation is to ensure best practice is taken to reduce/minimize risks and conserve functionality. This does not mean that installations carried out in accordance with previous editions are unsafe. It just means that (in theory) future installs will be safer still.

In a court of law the regs though not mandatory, would be taken as such. You would have to explain & prove to the court a very good reason why any work you did was acceptable if it did not follow the regs. In other words you would have to prove that work completed was better practice than that advised by the regs.

 

[Intoelectrics]

Duplicate post

 

[Percyprod]

Mmm I suppose the thousands who have been taken to court for carrying out wiring which doesn't comply with the regs would agree with you. I would think a qualified electrician who made a mistake would be more likely to appear in court than some one who totally ignored the regs and made a complete balls up of an installation.

 

[Intoelectrics]

Mmm I suppose the thousands who have been taken to court for carrying out wiring which doesn't comply with the regs would agree with you. I would think a qualified electrician who made a mistake would be more likely to appear in court than some one who totally ignored the regs and made a complete balls up of an installation.

I suppose that depends on how successful the authorities are at holding the responsible parties accountable. the guy who holds his hands up and says "yep it was me i'm sorry, my bad" is an easy target. the cowboy installer maybe not so easy to track down.
life is not fair, when things go wrong the natural progression is to find somebody to blame, we are all guilty of this at some point.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I blame the government.

 

[MDJ]

Mmm I suppose the thousands who have been taken to court for carrying out wiring which doesn't comply with the regs would agree with you. I would think a qualified electrician who made a mistake would be more likely to appear in court than some one who totally ignored the regs and made a complete balls up of an installation.

Name 20?

 

[Midwest]

Can list a couple that haven't complied with Building Regs, if I can be arsed. Think the problem lies with taking up a the case for a prosecution, or responsibility there of.

Perhaps they should come up with a fixed penalty scheme for failure to comply. If you get 12 points or more on your JIB card, you're suspended & have to go and take a retest.

 

[Percyprod]

My point was that I don't think any DIY spark has been taken to court, so of course I couldn't name ay

 

[Deleted member 26818]

My point was that I don't think any DIY spark has been taken to court, so of course I couldn't name ay

Sarcasm or irony?

 

[Percyprod]

Neither. Just stating a fact. No point having rules if they're not enforced. A professional electrician goes through all the hoops to work to them. If he makes a mistake he can be done for it, as he has registered the work. Some one doing the same unofficially gets away with it, as there is no record of it.

 

[Midwest]

Neither. Just stating a fact. No point having rules if they're not enforced. A professional electrician goes through all the hoops to work to them. If he makes a mistake he can be done for it, as he has registered the work. Some one doing the same unofficially gets away with it, as there is no record of it.

I'm not sure at the moment there's any difference from a DIY'er cocking up to qualified electrician?

 

[Percyprod]

Qualified sparks has signed a firm saying he carried out the work, diyer can day some one else did it, difficult to prove otherwise.

 

[StephenRowley]

Just because the regs aren't a law of sorts you can still be sent down for not following them.

 

[Octopus]

I think you may have taken the statement as it is currently law, what I was in fact meaning is that if those who want 7671 to be statutory then it will be law. I can see that wasn't clear in my post. If 7671 in it's entirety does become law then the above scenario will be highly likely.

Approximately 15 years after colour changes there is absolutely no need for these labels ...... so should not even be mentioned in bs 7671

 

[Midwest]

Qualified sparks has signed a firm saying he carried out the work, diyer can day some one else did it, difficult to prove otherwise.

Well probably; but if someone's keen enough to identifying themselves, by supplying a cert, they might just do a job that complies.

 

[Intoelectrics]

Neither. Just stating a fact. No point having rules if they're not enforced. A professional electrician goes through all the hoops to work to them. If he makes a mistake he can be done for it, as he has registered the work. Some one doing the same unofficially gets away with it, as there is no record of it.

I don't disagree with what is bugging you I think the majority of (all the properly qualified decent sparkies) feel the same way. The point is the regs are not mandatory rules so you cannot be prosecuted for not following them to the letter. They are an authority in that they are the accepted best practice guidelines that people in the industry are expected to follow and work to. These guidelines are there to ensure that all measures are taken to ensure that the installation is as safe as practically possible and functions consistently as per design. So in a court of law you could be prosecuted for... basically negligence, unless you were able to show and prove a valid reason for not following the industry accepted guidelines. (I suspect that there is extremely rarely, if any, situation where not following the regs is actually better practice than doing so)
The difficulty, as you mention, is that decent tradespeople put their name to their work, accept responsibility and this is registered and recorded, cowboys don't!

 

[Percyprod]

Not knocking qualified sparks. Just saying anyone can make a mistake, part of the reason for testing an installation. If the correct tests are carried out properly, then there shouldn't be any mistakes. My point is that if a mistake is made and causing an injury for example, then someone who has registered that job can't say it wasn't him, whereas the DIYer can say someone else did it and buggered off. I can't see how he would be prosecuted. Thing is, with all the proclaimers of doom saying you shouldn't do things you're not qualified to do, the chances of anyone other than a professional being done, rightly or wrongly, is very remote. We've all seen wiring that is lethal, but has been like that for years, with no problems. I've often heard someone say "Well it works" when they've used a tape joint, wired a socket in 1mm flex or whatever. Just saying the more regs you have the more will be ignored. Like any other law, practically impossible to enforce.

 

[Intoelectrics]

Not knocking qualified sparks. Just saying anyone can make a mistake, part of the reason for testing an installation. If the correct tests are carried out properly, then there shouldn't be any mistakes. My point is that if a mistake is made and causing an injury for example, then someone who has registered that job can't say it wasn't him, whereas the DIYer can say someone else did it and buggered off. I can't see how he would be prosecuted. Thing is, with all the proclaimers of doom saying you shouldn't do things you're not qualified to do, the chances of anyone other than a professional being done, rightly or wrongly, is very remote. We've all seen wiring that is lethal, but has been like that for years, with no problems. I've often heard someone say "Well it works" when they've used a tape joint, wired a socket in 1mm flex or whatever. Just saying the more regs you have the more will be ignored. Like any other law, practically impossible to enforce.

I agree with what you are saying. The point also being that it is unlikely that anyone doing an install following the regs and rectifying their mistakes is going to end up in court. And if they do they have something to fall back on. A cowboy is most likely not going to be traced but if so and ended up in court wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Yes its a pain in the backside every time they update the regs, but we have to accept it and work to them. There has to be an accepted industry standard and it needs to be updated as things improve and progress. We all need guidance because our trade is so diverse. To make it law and then governing it is a whole new ball game and would probably be a bigger pain in the butt than its worth and i guarantee we would be footing the bill for it!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

In this particular edition, I don’t like the fact that sockets for specific items of equipment, must now have RCD protection.

The RCD protection is not to protect the specific item, as we can omit RCD protection if we use an FCU or use a plug and socket rated higher than 32A.

Initially RCD protection for sockets was limited to those which could reasonably be expected to be used for portable equipment used outdoors.
This is quite understandable, as people were dying when they cut through lawn mower cables.
Then again, why does the electrical installation have to be changed rather than the manufacturer’s of the equipment being required to produce safer equipment?

For the 17th edition it was decided to extend this RCD protection to mobile equipment used both indoors as well as that used outdoors. With exceptions for skilled/instructed persons or where the use of sockets was supervised by skilled or instructed persons.
Again quite understandable, RCDs are a lot cheaper and protecting people against damaged flexes or damaged equipment is a good idea.

During the 17th it was decided that certain persons (apparently Headmasters in Schools) were abusing this exception by pretending that socket use was under their supervision, when in fact there was no supervision at all.
Rather than prosecuting theses certain persons who were clearly in breach of the HASAWA and EAWR, the IET decided RCD protection could only be omitted where a documented Risk Assessment stating RCD protection was not required had been produced.
I took exception (and still do) to this new requirement.
To my mind if someone is prepared to ignore Statutory requirements, such as those in the HASAWA and EAWR, why would anybody expect them to comply with the non-statutory requirements of BS7671?
Why should the onus for compliance with Statutory requirements be shifted from the responsible person (sic) to the electrical designer?
Why if the IET had evidence of this law breaking were the culprits not prosecuted?
Why has the IET never published or made available this evidence of non compliance with the HASAWA, EAWR and BS7671?
If these people are prepared to break the law in respect of ensuring their staff are trained to use or to be supervised while using electrical equipment, what other laws are they prepared to break?

So why the change?
Are plugs and sockets no longer deemed safe?
We’ve been using plugs and sockets since the 40s, BS7671 still lists them as an acceptable method for connection to the electrical supply.
Why all of a sudden does the plug behind my washing machine that only ever gets used every 4-6 years when my washing machine needs replacing now need RCD protection?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Why all of a sudden does the plug behind my washing machine that only ever gets used every 4-6 years when my washing machine needs replacing now need RCD protection?

Because socket outlets involve a physical interaction with electrical equipment in the action of plugging in and contact by the end user with equipment of unknown safety. It is far simpler to require all 13a outlets to be protected rather than make available 'loopholes' which may result in a hazard if taken advantage of in a way the regulations do not intend.