Court case

[NickD]

TBH it's probably a moot discussion, I see RCBO's being standard fitment for every circuit a couple of years from now.

Standard practice or mandated by the regs for new installs, do you mean?

 

[Marvo]

Probably will be mandated by regs with the usual 'but no need for retrospective application of the reg as long as the installation was compliant in the middle of last century when it was installed and switched neutrals were still fashionable.'

Maybe someone can explain why even the blatant safety improvements in new versions of regs aren't retrospective. Even if a 5 year grace period was given to allow people time to budget for example, probably dozens of lives could be saved

 

[NickD]

Maybe someone can explain why even the blatant safety improvements in new versions of regs aren't retrospective. Even if a 5 year grace period was given to allow people time to budget for example, probably dozens of lives could be saved

It's a general principle of the rules the state imposes on its citizens - you don't do anything that makes something wrong in retrospect that was OK at the time. You couldn't have a law that makes drinking beer illegal both now and in the past, say. European Convention on Human Rights (which is nothing to do with the EU by the way) Article 7 prohibits making things illegal in retrospect, for example.

 

[Marvo]

Sorry, I think I probably didn't explain very well. I was meaning for example the RCD's have been a requirement on new installations for several years but the requirement was never made retrospective so it forces owners of older installations to comply and have them fitted after a suitable grace period to cushion the financial impact.

 

[NickD]

Sorry, I think I probably didn't explain very well. I was meaning for example the RCD's have been a requirement on new installations for several years but the requirement was never made retrospective so it forces owners of older installations to comply and have them fitted after a suitable grace period to cushion the financial impact.

That's what I meant. Such a rule would say "You know what you paid lots for to have done X years ago and was perfectly and completely legit at the time? Well, now we made it so that it's not." It's like imposing an new emissions standard on *all* cars which half the cars already on the road do not meet and never can.

 

[Golden_Boy]

I wonder if, after the event, and allowing the water to dry out, an IR test was carried out on that circuit?
If there was no path to earth the readings may well have been OK,
that doesnt detract from the tragedy of a young woman meeting her death in such a way. may that never happen again..

 

[NickD]

I wonder if, after the event, and allowing the water to dry out, an IR test was carried out on that circuit?
If there was no path to earth the readings may well have been OK,
that doesnt detract from the tragedy of a young woman meeting her death in such a way. may that never happen again..

I wondered whether that was the 0.02Mohm reading that the prosecuting QC was quoting in court as what the test result should have been. You wonder though how they can be confident that that is representative of what the reading would have been on the day of the test, seven years ago. Say they took their a reading after all that bloody rain we had in January, but on the day of the testing seven years ago it had been bone dry for weeks....