16th ed unsheathed cables

[I2C]

Which particular regulation would you use to support this statement?

Page 4 of the current regulations (BS7671 Amendent 3) states under the title "Introduction to BS 7671:2008(2015)" during paragraph two, that "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading"

 

[westward10]

Page 4 of the current regulations (BS7671 Amendent 3) states under the title "Introduction to BS 7671:2008(2015)" during paragraph two, that "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading"

That isn't quite what you quoted in #13.

 

[I2C]

That isn't quite what you quoted in #13.

I was paraphrasing, and I accept I wasn't completely correct during #13 but neither was I quoting. I hope this clears things up.

The regulations could be more specific regarding your question and at the end of the day, it's entirely your choice when interpenetrating it's contents. To be honest, you don't even need to follow it's advice at all technically, but I'm not getting into that as it's not something I'd recommend.

 

[davesparks]

Page 4 of the current regulations (BS7671 Amendent 3) states under the title "Introduction to BS 7671:2008(2015)" during paragraph two, that "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading"

That does not support your statement. As you have clearly highlighted it only states that it does not necessarily mean that it is unsafe or requires upgrading, this is not the same as saying that something installed compliance with previous regulations is never dangerous or needs upgrading.

What it means is that compliance with previous regulations on its own is not a reason to consider something unsafe, a good example is that red and black conductors do not comply with current regulations but this on its own is not unsafe.
It also means that if something is considered unsafe now then it doesn’t matter if it complied at the time of installation, it is unsafe. A good example of this is that it was once a requirement of the regulations to install a fuse in the neutral of a circuit, this is now considered unsafe and is potentially dangerous.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Which edition of the Regulations required fused neutrals?

 

[davesparks]

Which edition of the Regulations required fused neutrals?

The 9th edition (regulation 94) is the only one I actually have a copy of to hand to confirm this at the moment, but I think the requirement was also in later editions and wasn’t removed until the 13th (1950’s era)

 

[Toneyz]

I am sure that in the 15th you could have unsheathed flex to loads eg electric clocks lights etc of 0.5A. It would not be the edition of the regs it was installed more as designed to. when was this work done ?. The problem is that these fittings are mostly designed to take one cable, however, this is just bad workmanship.

 

[Wilko]

View attachment 39378 Such work practices are going on today ....

You been in my kitchen ?
(Kev definitely helped with the under cupboard lights)

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I would imagine the installation was constructed within the last 10 years, considering the client wishes to take advantage of the 10 year warranty.

 

[KEV 1 N]

You been in my kitchen ?
(Kev definitely helped with the under cupboard lights)

Steady!.....I would never use green/yellow tape for that........black tape would blend in better!

 

[l4urence]

This is a good thread, one that could take up days of debating at the IET. We understand the regulations are not retrospective but here we asking to confirm that when it was installed, it did comply at the time with the past regs (for warranty). In these days of litigation why pay for a rewire if you can prove it was done incorrectly and claim. Brilliant.

 

[l4urence]

Just another thought. Let’s say that the initial work was done in accordance with say 16th and cert issued. This is the cert being compared against now. How do we know that the downlighters were not changed since then and the work (and connectors) was not the work done by the certifying sparks.

 

[HandySparks]

This is a good thread, one that could take up days of debating at the IET. We understand the regulations are not retrospective but here we asking to confirm that when it was installed, it did comply at the time with the past regs (for warranty). In these days of litigation why pay for a rewire if you can prove it was done incorrectly and claim. Brilliant.

Doesn't sound like a rewire. More like a new build done less than 10 years ago. Maybe the OP can confirm?

 

[123]

6-10 years ago MR16 Downlighters where all the in thing. Now it's all LED, so it wouldn't be a surprise to see downlighters replaced even if only for GU10 fittings with LED lamp.