Retrospective Regulations

[ThrownRazor25]

Hi all,

Just looking for opinions on a popular dispute between our guys.

Are the regulations retrospective?

By this i mean would you add to a ring main or install a socket without RCD protection?
Would you do the same with lights now as per new 18th edition?
If doing an EICR you see trunking up high which the cables come come loose in the event of a fire but do not fit clip as "it complied with a previous edition of the regulations"

This last statement is something i hear time and time again and it is something i totally dismiss. The regs are there to be followed.

 

[Andy78]

The work you do has to comply with current regs. How you achieve this is up to you but it only pertains to the work being done and not any of the existing installation with the exception of fundamental requirements such as earthing and bonding.

When inspecting an older installation "it complied at time of install" has nowt to do with it. We inspect using the current standard against which to evaluate danger or potential danger.

References
introduction to BS7671
132.16
Section 621

 

[Octopus]

The 18th regulation on luminaries is plain daft imho

 

[ThrownRazor25]

I totally agree with both of the above points.

Some of the sparks i know would happily spur a new socket off a ring main which has rewireable fuses with no rcd protection and say the circuit complied with a previous edition wtf?

I think the new lighting reg is daft too but it is there regardless so am i right in saying that in future if changing a light the circuit has no rcd you should be installing one to additionally protect the circuit? Some of my guys are saying clients wont agree to that! A cheap job has just become an expensive job. I dont buy that answer at all the regs are there to be followed of not then what is the point?

 

[SparkyChick]

The problem is, the public... they have no clue about the regulations and the IET (in my opinion at least) don't do enough to educate them.

So when you rock up, give a dam, and quote to do a compliant safe job you're going to be more expensive than Dangerous Dave who doesn't give a fig about little issues like no RCD protection or the earthing and bonding.

 

[Andy78]

Some of the sparks i know would happily spur a new socket off a ring main which has rewireable fuses with no rcd protection and say the circuit complied with a previous edition wtf?

They don't know their job then. Section 110 sets out what the regs apply to.

 

[Fitzy]

So when changing a light under the 18th edition and the lighting circuit has no RCD protection and the consumer unit has no room to instal said RCD, what are we to do? As said previously a cheap £25 light change job becomes “sorry, but you need a new £500+ consumer unit installed, because the circuit now requires RCD protection”, ‘oh thank you Mr Electrician, please turn this simple cheap job in to an expensive rip off job, just wait there while I go contact BBC Watchdog’.....

 

[Andy78]

So when changing a light under the 18th edition and the lighting circuit has no RCD protection and the consumer unit has no room to instal said RCD, what are we to do? As said previously a cheap £25 light change job becomes “sorry, but you need a new £500+ consumer unit installed, because the circuit now requires RCD protection”, ‘oh thank you Mr Electrician, please turn this simple cheap job in to an expensive rip off job, just wait there while I go contact BBC Watchdog’.....

Or provide a stand alone RCD, or RCD FCU for a circuit alteration.

Changing a light fitting would not be a circuit alteration in my eyes.

I do agree it's a stupid new reg though.

 

[Ian1981]

If it is like for like maintenance jobs then you are not altering or adding to the existing installation so rcd protection need not be installed but can always be mentioned and the customer made aware along with some of the basic inspection and testing (ZS) for example

 

[davesparks]

Anything you install now should comply with the current regulations.

An EICR carried out now should be carried out to the current regulations, however you only report on items concerning safety, you don’t report on items which don’t comply but have no effect on safety.
For example the old colours don’t comply, but don’t effect the safety of the installation.

 

[Ben Keer]

The work you do has to comply with current regs. How you achieve this is up to you but it only pertains to the work being done and not any of the existing installation with the exception of fundamental requirements such as earthing and bonding.

When inspecting an older installation "it complied at time of install" has nowt to do with it. We inspect using the current standard against which to evaluate danger or potential danger.

References
introduction to BS7671
132.16
Section 621

The work you do has to comply with current regs. How you achieve this is up to you but it only pertains to the work being done and not any of the existing installation with the exception of fundamental requirements such as earthing and bonding.

When inspecting an older installation "it complied at time of install" has nowt to do with it. We inspect using the current standard against which to evaluate danger or potential danger.

References
introduction to BS7671
132.16
Section 621

Is there anything in the bs7671 regs book itself that back this up. I agree with you in that the work carried out should comply but not necessarily back dated to the whole installation if you are only working on 1 circuit.

I've recently been roasted because of this and looking for some clarification to come back with if the subject arrises again.

 

[richy3333]

Is it a ring main?

Seems a simple question to me? If ‘your guys’ can’t interpret simple Regs, maybe you need new ‘guys’ why are they arguing!?

 

[Ben Keer]

Is it a ring main?

Seems a simple question to me? If ‘your guys’ can’t interpret simple Regs, maybe you need new ‘guys’ why are they arguing!?

No it was a new circuit out on the eve side of a splitload board so everything with the newly installed circuit was compliant. I was told that the other 4 lighting/other mcbs (not worked on) should have been replaced for rcbos to make them compliant even though they were never touched.

 

[Octopus]

No it was a new circuit out on the eve side of a splitload board so everything with the newly installed circuit was compliant. I was told that the other 4 lighting/other mcbs (not worked on) should have been replaced for rcbos to make them compliant even though they were never touched.

Who told you that?

 

[Ben Keer]

Who told you that?

Niceic domestic installer scheme inspector!!!