Where to buy nylon screws?

[Dartlec]

That's clear enough. It was the idea of effecting a solution that wasn't to current regs, which didn't sit right with me.

I should probably read the Best Practice Guides as they may address other issues that I haven't yet reconciled.

I guess the argument it is that replacing an existing faceplate that causes danger with one that removes that danger is within the spirit of good practice - and that a replacement is not the same as a new installation?

I think in a domestic rental EICR I'd be cautious about doing much in the way of remedial work on a circuit to get a satisfactory in that situation though. But then again the chances of being able to rewire in 28 days are slim, so it is a temporary solution to a present situation.

There are surprisingly many houses that still have that age wiring - a testimony to how well PVC cabling lasts I guess..

I can think of at least 4 properties (only one rental) I've been to in just the last 6 months that were wired that way.

 

[Dartlec]

My mistake. I've always called them socket screws. They are for lights switches.

Gosh, I didn't know that reg existed! It makes it pretty clear fault protection can be omitted.

Yep, I only ran into it because of the Spark Ninja video, which was mostly about earthing back boxes with a flylead or not - (and he said he would anyway in new installs).

Sometimes I pick up nuggets like this that I'd never get from any amount of time reading the book cover to cover ...

 

[westward10]

It is clear enough in BS7671 that Class II protection should only be used in monitored environments that would not include a dwelling.

 

[nicebutdim]

It is clear enough in BS7671 that Class II protection should only be used in monitored environments that would not include a dwelling.

Brings us back to my original thoughts, but what about BPG4 statement?

I'm guessing the replacement of Class 1 lighting and metal switchplates, where no CPC is present, would not be acceptable as an initial recommendation, but is it an acceptable means of risk reduction where a homeowner refuses the option of bringing CPC to each point?



I think it was a couple of Nick Bundy videos where he mentioned replacing replacing lights or accessories when CPC had been absent. Perhaps he had discussed options with the client and they had refused all offered solutions, but the way he had commented gave the impression that this was something he deemed to be acceptable.

 

[westward10]

Brings us back to my original thoughts, but what about BPG4 statement?

I'm guessing the replacement of Class 1 lighting and metal switchplates, where no CPC is present, would not be acceptable as an initial recommendation, but is it an acceptable means of risk reduction where a homeowner refuses the option of bringing CPC to each point?



I think it was a couple of Nick Bundy videos where he mentioned replacing replacing lights or accessories when CPC had been absent. Perhaps he had discussed options with the client and they had refused all offered solutions, but the way he had commented gave the impression that this was something he deemed to be acceptable.

It may well be a risk reduction but the wants of the homeowner shouldn't be a factor. If we find this we only give one option and they can take it or leave it, risk reduction wouldn't even be considered it is their home and shouldn't be your problem. As for BPG4 do you follow this or BS7671 Regulation 412.1.2, I know which I will follow.

 

[7029 dave]

It may well be a risk reduction but the wants of the homeowner shouldn't be a factor. If we find this we only give one option and they can take it or leave it, risk reduction wouldn't even be considered it is their home and shouldn't be your problem. As for BPG4 do you follow this or BS7671 Regulation 412.1.2, I know which I will follow.

I disagree with some points, IMO you have to consider the risks. We all know the correct solution, however if a client refuses then the next best thing needs to happen, removing all class1 accessories and providing class2 to the point of nylon screws (as the thread suggests)

 

[westward10]

I disagree with some points, IMO you have to consider the risks. We all know the correct solution, however if a client refuses then the next best thing needs to happen, removing all class1 accessories and providing class2 to the point of nylon screws (as the thread suggests)

If they refuse they refuse it wouldn't be my problem. This is often found on an EICR so the situation is documented if they don't want the solution we suggest then that is up to them. Fitting Class II fittings may well reduce the risk but how long for, until someone changes it because the situation isn't being monitored.

 

[7029 dave]

If there were some fatal accident and some smart Barrister pulls up BPG4 , the Judge could turn round and say you have not done enough to minimize the risk , despite BS7671 Regulation 412.1.2 or even any documented EICR (so it becomes very much your problem)

That of cause is only my fear I could be talking rubbish just putting it out there.

 

[westward10]

If there were some fatal accident and some smart Barrister pulls up BPG4 , the Judge could turn round and say you have not done enough to minimize the risk , despite BS7671 Regulation 412.1.2 or even any documented EICR (so it becomes very much your problem)

That of cause is only my fear I could be talking rubbish just putting it out there.

I've carried out an EICR and the situation is suitably documented and if necessary explained to the client, I have done my job the contract is finished. Remedial works/suggestions will be a separate issue and it is entirely up to the client whether they take up these works even if some decide to minimise the risk, it cannot be forced onto the client. BPG4 would not be a factor here my works are following BS7671.

 

[nicebutdim]

I can see both sides of this argument. While it's possible that BPG4 could be used as the basis of a case in these circumstances, it is equally possible that a similar case could be taken against someone who followed the advice in BPG4 as it didn't comply with BS7671.

Not sure why electricians often seem to be placed in the position of having to try finding a means of ensuring the safety of customers who refuse to consider their own family's safety - or that of their tenant.