New sub board for shed swa advice.

[Pete999]

And going to jail.

You are really getting rude and insulting.
without posting in this manner where does the 1.5m come from?

Agree with AB

 

[bigbob1]

Because you lot only read BS7671 and have no understanding of the massive list of ‘other’ ACOP’s......

which shall consist of an independent earth electrode and RCD protection. The TT earthing system shall be segregated by a minimum of 2m from any PME earthing system. The supply and installation of earthing system and protection is the responsibility of the customer.

Not every answer is in BS7671, as of 18/1/18 it is now 2m not 1.5m....

 

[bigbob1]

#E5

 

[Ian1981]

#E5

So you are pretending to be associated with #E5 now?
They do not spout such utter nonsense

 

[Toneyz]

Sorry to say it has descended into this a few times . I still see no reason why one supply can't serve more than one building, which seems to be the go to jail trigger. Section 5.6 in GN8 explains how. And it doesn't need any new permissions from DNO, as it's all beyond their service head.
But I do agree that we should convene a working party to examine your outside light .

He seems one of those like the vlogs on Youtube that like the sound of their own voice and is arguing (and insulting) just for the sake of enjoyment. Guidance note 8 published by the IET illustrates what is permitted regarding detached building and he seems to try to tell us they are wrong.

 

[Pete999]

So you are pretending to be associated with #E5 now?
They do not spout such utter nonsense

Sorry have to ask, what is#E5?

 

[netblindpaul]

I think that the posts regarding the exporting of a PME earth are clouding the question somewhat.

Why can it not be understood that when an person is at work, HASAWA & if they are involved with electrical systems EAWR applies to them and their work.
Regardless of where this work is done.

Murdoch, why do you consider yourself above the law?
Spinlondon, if you are an IEE member of old, and still are a member, then you are voluntarily bound by the now IET rules of membership, i.e. their code of conduct, and if you are registered with the EngC then you are also bound by their code of conduct.
Diggaboy, I would be interested why you consider yourself above the law also.

Why is everyone so hung up on following an industry code of practice that does not have the same legal standing as an HSE ACoP, and treat it as law.
It's an industry guide, it is riddled with errors, even the new one, typo's, cross referencing errors and others, just like most of the IET books.

How can I explain the situation when the fundamental reasons are being dismissed as not relevant.
I have even extracted and posted the relevant regulations from HASAWA & EAWR that apply, and it seems nobody has read the posts to realise that this does apply to them, how can it not.

The suggestion that these laws do not apply is simply stupidity and a reminder of this has been sent to every NICEIC QS, and has been publicised by all the schemes, and the IET.
Her Majesty's Coroner wrote to them all under Rule 43 following a death of an innocent woman in her home.

Or are you all going to tell me that she didn't die, and that the QS wasn't prosecuted under HASAWA, and that the law didn't apply because you all know better than the Coroner's inquest, the jury, HSE, the expert witnesses, and the judge for the trial of the QS?

You might want to tell her young kids that their mother wasn't unlawfully killed by incompetent electrical work. See if they understand that.

 

[Marvo]

**sigh....not the forums finest hour.

I don't have the stomach to read the whole thread but things are getting a bit personal in the last few pages of replies.

Please play the ball and not the man even if the debate is going around in circles or if people are entrenched in their opinion....Regardless how wrong or mistaken they may be they're entitled to it.

 

[Octopus]

Murdoch, why do you consider yourself above the law?

Simple answer I don't

BUT why are you arguing about a point where you can't quote a BS 7671 reg number ...................... thats what I don't understand.

YOU started this FARCE but stating things that are simply inaccurate.

I will repeat, for the last time

Which BS 7671 (17th edition AMD3) regulation do you quote to back up your "claim" that SWA armour MUST be connected to the earth at the supply end?

 

[netblindpaul]

Someone earlier asked if Rob was around, now, I have seen Rob state on here many times that BS 7671 is not the be all and end all of electrical works.

There have been several posts on this thread where I have posted extracts from the law, and persons have indicated that they disagree, ergo, they are in the belief that it is not applicable and as they have selected this, then I think it is reasonable to believe that they believe that the law does not apply to them.

So, OK, if it can be agreed that the law applies, then BS 7671 is irrelevant. It is the law that must be complied with. NOT BS 7671.
Then we can move this forward.
BS 7671 is irrelevant in this situation.
Once everyone stops trying to beat me down with nonsense about the law not applying, then I can go on and explain, but, first it must be understood that the law of the land does apply here and it has been proven to apply, and a QS went to court for it, and was prosecuted.
The only reason his employer was not prosecuted is that they went into liquidation, and as the QS he was the one legally liable, hence his successful prosecution under HASAWA s7.
The Coroner wrote to the NICEIC under Rule 43 which resulted in them writing to every QS for every NICEIC AC to remind them of their legal duty.
Any of you who are NICEIC QS's should be aware of this.