OP
Adam W
At what point does one person or organisation's interpretation of the regs become their own reg?
For example ferrule crimps on the ends of stranded cable. There are plenty of threads on this issue on the forum such as this one and this one; while BS7671 doesn't actually say they are a requirement in as many words, it does hint at it.
Or PAT testing - not actually a legal requirement, but it can help show compliance with the EAWR, which is a legal requirement.
Or the old "health & safety gone mad" cliché where things are banned on the grounds of "health & safety" even though the HSE had nothing to do with it, nor would they 'ban' it if they did.
For example ferrule crimps on the ends of stranded cable. There are plenty of threads on this issue on the forum such as this one and this one; while BS7671 doesn't actually say they are a requirement in as many words, it does hint at it.
Or PAT testing - not actually a legal requirement, but it can help show compliance with the EAWR, which is a legal requirement.
Or the old "health & safety gone mad" cliché where things are banned on the grounds of "health & safety" even though the HSE had nothing to do with it, nor would they 'ban' it if they did.
