The absurdity of the Electricians trade

Discussion in 'Electricians' Talk' started by unphased, Oct 13, 2018.

  1. spinlondon

    spinlondon Screwfix Select

    No you need permission if you intend using it as sole protection for all or part of a consumer’s installation.
     
  2. Coloumb

    Coloumb Screwfix Select

    It might be polite to ask but you do not need it. If your doing something considered "dangerous" then the ONLY recourse the supplier has is to withdraw the supply. This can be done as there is a law in place. If your protecting the tails using their fuse, this is dangerous how? There is no such law in place to prevent you using the suppliers cut out fuse to protect your tails. In fact, technically the tails beyond the meter are not considered the suppliers, they belong to the owner, so how do protect them?

    In fact, every time I've rung up suppliers to ask about this, the stock answer is - what ever you do with your tails is your business, we are not interested.
     
  3. spinlondon

    spinlondon Screwfix Select

    BS7671 relates to the consumer’s installation, not the distribution network.
    The consumer’s installation starts at the consumer connection point provided by the distributer (usually at the meter).
    BS7671 allows the use of the distributer’s fuse if the distributer gives permission.
    If no permission has been obtained, then overload and earth fault protection must be provided to comply with BS7671.
    The Law allows a DNO to disconnect or refuse a supply (without a court order) only on safety grounds.
    An installation which complies with BS7671 is deemed safe.

    As such, if you rely on the DNO fuse to provide overload or earth fault protection for all or part of an installation, without permission, BS7671 has not been complied with and the DNO can disconnect or refuse connection, in accordance with the Law.

    There are instances where the DNO will give permission for their cut out to be used to provide protection for all or part of a consumer’s installation, though they are far and few between. Usually only installations controlled by an Authorised Person.
     
  4. Hans_25

    Hans_25 Screwfix Select

    It is not necessarily reliant on faith for knowing an MCB will work as intended. It depends how it is designed, what the design parameters are and how the design is tested.

    Take the fuse analogy - everyone knows a fuse will blow as intended, as its designed a certain way which more or less guarantees it will work.

    May be the inherent design of an RCD isn't as robust so they need testing every once in a while, the design is more "sensitive" to environmental conditions and/or time.
     
  5. Coloumb

    Coloumb Screwfix Select

    7671 isn't law. Unless there is a contract or law between the IET and the distributor then there is simply no mechanism to enforce this.

    From the BSI web site

    How standards are used in law
    The government often draws on standards when putting together legislation or guidance documents. Standards are used to establish the technical detail, allowing the legislation to concentrate on long term policy objectives – for example product safety, or environmental protection.

    In a case like this, compliance with the standard will often mean you’re compliant with the relevant legislation, although there are usually ways of being compliant with legislation without using a standard.


    If the Zs tolerance of the cut out fuse is met at the CU then an extra fuse, of the same rating, makes this safer how? The law only allows the distributor to cut off supply if, and only if, what the supplier is supplying is deemed dangerous or causing them nuisance. If they took you to court you could easily prove this to be nonsense. The cut out fuse has no magically properties to make it work differently just because you do or do not have permission to use it. What barrister would argue that the laws of physics are different just because you do not have permission from the supplier? He would be laughed out of court. Even if reg 434.3 (iv) where not complied with, the distributor would still have to argue that having two fuses of the same rating in series is less dangerous than one. So on what grounds could they with hold permission? The couldn't as the law doesn't allow them to. In any case 7671 isn't law.

    By law, the supplier can only cut off the supply in an emergency, otherwise they have to give reasonable notice. They don't need a court order for either.

    You have proof of this?

    As above, they are not interested. Every time I've called them I get the same thing. We don't care. I've had metering people round from UK power networks to replace my cut out and BG to fit a smart meter. I've shown them my tails (over three meters btw) and both time ABSOLUTELY NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN. This is a real world, real life situation. If they where than bothered why are they still supplying me? Surely there must be some enforcement action for this to work? I've NEVER heard of a case where the supply has been cut off because the cut out fuse is used without permission.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  6. Bob Rathbone

    Bob Rathbone Screwfix Select

    The use of the service fuse in extreme situations for protection will rarely have 'permission'. If the breaker does not trip for whatever reason, it is not a planned event and as such will not require permission. BUT the consumer will have to foot the bill for service fuse replacement.
     
  7. spinlondon

    spinlondon Screwfix Select

    The mechanism to enforce is the ESQCR 2002.

    Doesn’t matter whether an extra fuse makes anything safer or not.

    Yes the law allows the DNO to disconnect or refuse a connection or alteration to an existing connection for safety reasons.
    One of the reasons cited in ESQCR is reasonable grounds for believing the consumer’s installation fails to comply with the requirements of the British Standard (BS7671) or the requirements of ESQCR.

    No, if your installation does not comply with BS7671, you would not easily prove the installation is safe.
    A barrister would not have to argue the laws of physics are different.
    The barrister would argue that the installation does not comply with the British Standard.

    No the DNO would not have to argue that having two fuses is safer than one.
    They would again argue that the installation does not comply with BS7671.

    No BS7671 is not Law, but it is the British Standard for electrical wiring, and the laws allows DNOs to disconnect or refuse connections to installations which do not comply.

    Yes I have proof of this, it is stated in the ESQCR.

    No they don’t care, why should they, it’s nothing to do with them.
    They supply the electricity to the installation, it’s your job to ensure the installation is safe.

    When these connections were made, did they request an EIC or any other form of assurance the installation is safe from you?
     
  8. Coloumb

    Coloumb Screwfix Select

    No they don't. They say this...

    25.—(1) No person shall make or alter a connection from a distributor’s network to a consumer’s installation, a street electrical fixture or to another distributor’s network without that distributor’s consent, unless such consent has been unreasonably withheld. (2) A distributor shall not give his consent to the making or altering of the connection referred to in paragraph (1), where he has reasonable grounds for believing that— (a) the consumer’s installation, street electrical fixture or other distributor’s network fails to comply with British Standard Requirements or these Regulations;

    or (b) the connection itself will not be so constructed, installed, protected and used or arranged for use, so as to prevent as far as is reasonably practicable, danger or interruption of supply.


    So you can either show that your install complies with 7671 or that the connection to their supply as far as is reasonably practicable, not dangerous.

    You are given a choice. You can ignore 7671 and use your own design. If your design is shown to be dangerous the supply can be lawfully disconnected. Adding a second fuse of the same rating does not make the supply any less dangerous than leaving it out. How can it it?


    What law could the barrister use to argue the install doesn't comply with 7671 and is therefore illegal?

    What law could the barrister use to argue the install doesn't comply with 7671 and is therefore illegal?

    What law could the barrister use to argue the install doesn't comply with 7671 and is therefore illegal?

    Where?

    What? If there is a law in place to prevent this then it's up to the rec to enforce it. Same as breaking any law.

    No.
     
  9. spinlondon

    spinlondon Screwfix Select

    Regulation 25-2a which you have quoted, requires that the DNO refuse a connection where they have reasonable grounds for belief that the installation does not comply with either the British Standard (BS7671) or with ESQCR.
    25-2b gives them a let out which even if they believe the installation does comply with BS7671 or ESQCR, they can still refuse the connection.
    It’s not a question of adding a second fuse.
    The DNO install a fuse to protect their equipment.
    BS7671 requires you to provide protection to the installation.
    The DNO fuse is not part of the installation, as far as BS7671 is concerned it doesn’t exist.
    (Unless of course you have permission to use it.)

    Why would a barrister need a law to prove an installation complies with BS7671?
    Either the installation complies or it doesn’t.
    If it complies, then a barrister wouldn’t be involved.
    If it doesn’t, a barrister wouldn’t need to prove anything.

    ESQCR 26-3 states a distributer may disconnect with out giving notice.

    No, it’s not actually up to the distributer to enforce the law.
    That’s the job of the police.

    I’m surprised that you have never been asked to provide an EIC for a new connection.
     
  10. Coloumb

    Coloumb Screwfix Select

    You are not reading the regulation correctly.

    It only gives them the right to refuse connection if what they are connecting to is deemed unsafe by a reasonable person.

    (b) the connection itself will not be so constructed, installed, protected and used or arranged for use, so as to prevent as far as is reasonably practicable, danger or interruption of supply.

    It's an option, either A or B. Not both.

    In order to enforece this the disty. would have to prove that what they are connected to or connecting to is dangerous in order to refuse supply. Plus what if the required supply was for something other than a domestic supply? Something that didn't need to comply with 7671?

    Also in your example this would also mean all of the install would have to comply with 7671 for the distributor to supply electric at all. There must be millions of homes that don't comply with 7671 with any amount of bodges and changes having taken place over the years.

    Why do you keep going on about permission? Ring up the supplier and ask. I've done twice and both times they have been fine with it. Why would they say no? If you really want proof then record the telephone call, though I can't for the life of me think of any reason why you would need it. For what reason? What useful purpose would it serve? You are the designer of the install, would you design something so as to be dangerous? I've already shown they can't NOT give permission by law, unless your doing something really stupid. In what situation would you do something so as to make the meter tails dangerous? Can you think of a situation that would make the tails dangerous? How? I would be very interested to know.

    Why do you keep saying 7671 doesn't recognize the cut out fuse? 434.3 (iv) makes direct reference to it. Or do you think it doesn't? There is also a reference to it under overload.

    The OSG also makes reference to the meter tails and divides them in to two sections, the suppliers (cut out to meter) and the owners (meter to cu). If the owners tails belong to the owner, and 7671, as you say, doesn't recognize the cut as providing protection, then how ARE they protected? According to your argument not by the cut out and not by 7671. How does that work then?

    only on grounds of safety ie emergency.

    The CPS in fact.
     
  11. Bob Rathbone

    Bob Rathbone Screwfix Select

    Surely, the contravention of BS 7671 only becomes criminal law when the contravention coincides with a statutory document such as Building Regs or HSE. I know that much has been made of the 'new' status of BS 7671 since Part P and the building regulations crossover was introduced, but the situation has not really altered. In a criminal law case BS 7671 will never be cited as a standard as other standards and regulations have a higher legal standing, it is these that will be used.
     
  12. spinlondon

    spinlondon Screwfix Select

    What are you on about?
    Of course I’m reading it correctly.

    No it doesn’t.
    They can refuse if they have reasonable grounds to believe the installation does not comply with either the British Standard or ESQCR.

    What do you mean not both?
    Seriously, you think that where an installation doesn’t comply with the British Standard and where the DNO also suspects the connection may be dangerous or cause a disruption to supply, that the DNO has to allow the connection?
    That the DNO can only refuse a connection if only one of the options apply?

    No, the DNO would not have to prove anything.
    All they have to do is have reasonable grounds for belief.

    Yes there are other British Standards other than BS7671, which is why the Regulation states British Standards rather than BS7671.

    Yes, all of the installation does have to comply.
    There may well be millions of installations (not just homes) that do not comply with BS7671. As no one is asking for these millions of installations to be connected, the point is moot.

    The reason I mention permission, is because it’s a requirement of BS7671.

    Please explain why you’ve twice asked for permission, if according to you, permission is not required.

    There are a number of reasons why they would say no.
    The main reason being liability.
    If the DNO agreed that their fuse could be used to protect part or all of a consumer’s installation, and their fuse failed to protect part or all of the installation, then they could be held responsible.
    Another reason would be if they gave permission, then the consumer would reasonably expect to be able to change or replace the protective device. A device the DNO is required by law to keep in a sealed or locked container.

    You’ve not proved anything.
    All you’ve done is made a number of statements, many of which have no basis in reality.

    Yes BS7671 does make direct reference to the cut-out, in reference to the rare occasion where the cut-out is used to protect part or all of a consumer’s installation.
    As BS7671 relates to installations, any device which protects part or all of an installation would fall within the scope of BS7671.

    Where as in the vast majority of installations, the cut-out does not protect part or all of an installation, BS7671 ignores the cut-out, as it falls outside of it’s scope.

    The OSG is a guide, not the Regulations.

    The customer tails as I have already stated do require protection in accordance with BS7671, which is why I have asked you how you would provide the required protection in the thread where you stated SWA cable is appropriate for use as tails.
    A question you have been unable to answer and are now asking me to supply the answer.

    Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
    You can’t deny that permission is required then admit that you have requested permission on two occasions.
    You can’t disagree with me, then expect me to answer the question posed to you.
     
  13. spinlondon

    spinlondon Screwfix Select

    It’s not a question of criminal law.
    It’s a matter of a Statutory requirement that Network Operators refuse connections to installations where they have reasonable grounds to believe the installations do not comply with the relevant British Standard. As set out in ESQCR 2002.
     
  14. Sparkielev

    Sparkielev Screwfix Select

    I have been to many homes were the DNO refused to reconnect supply, asking for a certificate before they do
     
  15. Coloumb

    Coloumb Screwfix Select

    Oh right, what sort of circumstances? Would be interested to know.
     
  16. Coloumb

    Coloumb Screwfix Select

    It would be civil law. You keep saying on and on it's set out in ESQCR 2002 but you haven't once given any example. If you really, truly believe that any given electrical installation has to comply with 7671 by law in order to be connected to or to continue to receive electric from a supplier why don't they ask you for a new certificate every time you add to or alter any electrical installation you've worked on to show this requirement? Surely this would be the logical conclusion?
     
  17. spinlondon

    spinlondon Screwfix Select

    From what I’m aware, it’s a pretty common occurrence.
    Of course, it wouldn’t happen to you.
    Then again, why did you ask permission twice when permission is not required?
     
  18. Sparkielev

    Sparkielev Screwfix Select

    Cannabis farms, fiddling of meters, were they wouldnt reconnect untill it was tested and a cert supplied
     
  19. Coloumb

    Coloumb Screwfix Select

    Thought as much. Not where the cut out fuse has been used to protect the tails then?
     
  20. Coloumb

    Coloumb Screwfix Select

    Because it's a requirement of 7671. It's not a legal requirement. There is a big difference. If you think it's a legal requirement, where is this stated?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice