IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: BS3871 mcb's
Topic Summary: 17th edition Reg 533.1doesn't recognise them
Created On: 17 March 2008 08:22 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 17 March 2008 08:22 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



iie62478

Posts: 220
Joined: 14 October 2005

The 17th edition Reg 533.1 lists all devices for protection against overcurrent but doesn't list BS3871 mcb's although it does list BS3036 rewreables? - does this mean that installations having BS3871 mcbs are now non compliant???????

-------------------------
Are we all in this together???
 17 March 2008 10:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19759
Joined: 23 March 2004

BS 3871 Part 1 1965

Superseded and Withdrawn - so probably the reason why it isn't listed. It was replaced with BS EN 60898 (this was also highlighted in the 16th

BS 3036:1958

Still Current - amazingly

I'm not sure the interpretation should be non compliant but I can see an awful lot of Distribution board changes as a result of over zealous application of the 17th Edition.

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

Edited: 17 March 2008 at 10:01 AM by OMS
 17 March 2008 10:10 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



perspicacious

Posts: 7245
Joined: 18 April 2006

"Still Current - amazingly"

What did you expect BS 3036 fuses to pass? Raisins?

Regards

BOD
 17 March 2008 10:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



perspicacious

Posts: 7245
Joined: 18 April 2006

"I'm not sure the interpretation should be non compliant but I can see an awful lot of Distribution board changes as a result of over zealous application of the 17th Edition."

More than the 16th?

Regards

non commercially

BOD
 17 March 2008 10:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19759
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: perspicacious

"Still Current - amazingly"



What did you expect BS 3036 fuses to pass? Raisins?



Regards



BOD


Yes, well, erm, aghh - too subtle for me BOD

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 17 March 2008 10:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19759
Joined: 23 March 2004

More than the 16th?


Oh Exponentially I suspect

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 17 March 2008 06:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogersmith7671

Posts: 886
Joined: 04 November 2004

Terry,
try this link for some usefull info regarding minature circuit breakers to BS3871;

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/3.6.4.htm

It may help you decide if they are dangerous or so similar that its not worth the worry.

Regards
 18 March 2008 07:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



iie62478

Posts: 220
Joined: 14 October 2005

Roger,

I dont have any worries about BS3871 mcb's being suitable in the locations I have them with regard to Breaking Capacity. My point was that by missing out mentioning them in the relevant regulation they are potentially opening a can of worm for the less scrupulous cowboys to rip off the general public on the "Oh they are not allowed as protection devices under the regs Sir/Madam, that means I have to change the board immediatley !!" scenario.

-------------------------
Are we all in this together???
 18 March 2008 09:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogersmith7671

Posts: 886
Joined: 04 November 2004

Terry,
I do see your point, its a pity that consumer organisations don't make more of an effort warn people about this type of problem.
Having said that, there can be problems relating to 3871's
in respect of the different max Z's alowable for 60898's and in certain circumstances the short circuit ratings.

Regards
 10 December 2011 03:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



oldie

Posts: 43
Joined: 24 February 2010

Just to highlight in the new green on site guide they have recorded BS 3781 on the new ECR test results on page 172
 10 December 2011 04:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3500
Joined: 17 December 2004

You can imagine making BS 3871's non-compliant, even illegal !.

All those fuse board changes.

Better not to mention them and then it might just go away. , Which is what the 16th 2001 edition did.

Two things to consider IMO is BS7671 is only guidance and how would an insurance company deal with a claim arising from a faulty BS3871?

Who would be held responsible? The inspector? the trade counter? the manufacturer? the owner? The IET and BS7671? the last person on site?
Somebody is to blame and it appears with all probability to be either the electrical inspector or the last competent person on site.

Good grief !..... we're all dooooomed

Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 10 December 2011 09:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



anastasis

Posts: 583
Joined: 01 September 2009

Remember that BS7671 is not retrospective... it has never required installations done to a previous edition to be upgraded... think how many houses there are with non-MF JBs under floorboards, to give but one example.

I once had a discussion with my insurance broker about what would happen if a defect causes an accident many years in the future. His view was that, generally speaking, liability decreases over time. In other words, if your work causes a fire 10 years later, it would be hard for someone to make a claim against you.

That seems reasonable, but I don't know enough about the law to say whether or not it is true.
 10 December 2011 09:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 5790
Joined: 27 December 2005

I believe that certainly with a PIR, the liability for the report lasts six years. For this reason, insurance companies recommend you continue paying your PI insurance for six years after your last PIR.

Regards,

Alan.
 10 December 2011 09:56 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11587
Joined: 13 August 2003

Not to mention BS 1361 fuses....
- Andy.
 10 December 2011 10:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Richard64

Posts: 231
Joined: 15 October 2009

I believe that the BS3871 require x4, x7 and x10 the rated current of the fuse to trip Type 1,2 and 3 respectively, in 0.4 and 5 secs.
Obviously the Max Zs can be calculated using 230 as the nominal voltage.
I also remember reading that there are no type A BSEN 60898 breakers, because the A could be confused with amps.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
 10 December 2011 10:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



anastasis

Posts: 583
Joined: 01 September 2009

Originally posted by: alancapon

I believe that certainly with a PIR, the liability for the report lasts six years. For this reason, insurance companies recommend you continue paying your PI insurance for six years after your last PIR.


The six years comes from the time limit for civil claims. However, I'm not sure if it applies for death/injury cases. There may also be other legal complications.

I asked my broker what would happen if there was a claim in the future when I'm not insured. He didn't think it would be a problem provided that I was insured at the date I did the work. But this may vary between insurers.
 10 December 2011 10:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 5790
Joined: 27 December 2005

My understanding (which may not be entirely correct) is that the Public Liability Insurance has to be in place only at the time the work was carried out, but for works that require Professional Indemnity Insurance (such as PIRs), the insurance may be called upon up to six years after the event, so it needs to be in place during this liability period.

Regards,

Alan.
 11 December 2011 11:47 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Angram

Posts: 555
Joined: 23 March 2009

I am interested to know if liability could reasonably extend across; 1) Change of ownership, 2) Re-furbishment by other trades

Some houses stay unaltered for 30-40 years. Some start DIYing a day after the EICR is delivered.

Is there any case law regarding PR/EICR ? It is never mentioned just feared by some it seems.
 11 December 2011 01:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19759
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: Angram

I am interested to know if liability could reasonably extend across; 1) Change of ownership, 2) Re-furbishment by other trades

Liability can be transferable - check out collateral warranties and rights of third parties. Actions by others are difficult - can they reasonably be forseen by you but equally can the consequences be predicted by them - loft installation and cable capacity being a prime example


Some houses stay unaltered for 30-40 years. Some start DIYing a day after the EICR is delivered.

Doesn't change your liability however

Is there any case law regarding PR/EICR ? It is never mentioned just feared by some it seems.

There are a few civil cases where people have acted in good faith regarding a PIR only to find that it was flawed - and have then recovered costs from the guy who did the PIR - house sales and refurb works being typical examples



OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

Edited: 11 December 2011 at 02:03 PM by OMS
 11 December 2011 01:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



anastasis

Posts: 583
Joined: 01 September 2009

Originally posted by: Angram

I am interested to know if liability could reasonably extend across; 1) Change of ownership, 2) Re-furbishment by other trades

...

Is there any case law regarding PR/EICR ? It is never mentioned just feared by some it seems.


Change of ownership - your contract is with the original owner, so I can't see how a future owner could sue you. Potentially they could sue the original owner, who could then claim against you. However, with property, the principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) is strongly applied, so the original owner is very unlikely to have guaranteed the electrics to the new owner.

Refurb - if someone does subsequent work on your installation and messes up, then it's their fault. Generally speaking, the person doing work has a duty of care to make sure that their work is safe, which requires them to check everything is good. Hence the stated need to check bonding and upgrade if necessary before doing anything. But I can see grey areas here depending on the specifics.

I'm not aware of any cases involving long-term liability for installation or inspection work - does anyone?
IET » Wiring and the regulations » BS3871 mcb's

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.