New electric regs

78 views
Skip to first unread message

Keith Dunbar

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 2:11:22 AM6/25/07
to
Could someone please explain the new regs about home wiring. We've just
moved in to a 400+ year old cottage, with thankfully a merely 40 year old
wiring system - with additions of course, but certainly not with modern
standards (i.e. relatively few single sockets). What do I have to do if I
want to add to the existing system - e.g put a fan heater and a mirror light
in the bathroom? I understand I need some sort of testing and certificate.
How much would that cost? And ... and this is what's really worrying me ...
is that testing likely to show up problems with the existing wiring which I
am then obliged to have corrected, even though the installation seems to
have no obvious problems? (I am assuming the new testing requirements have
a nit-picking element to them.) I certainly cannot afford a rewire at
present (ever?). But I don't intend moving until I am in my dotage - 20+
years on say. Would it be easier to just add whatever I want, using my
common sense, and when I sell the house make it clear it needs a rewire.

Keith


Peter Crosland

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 2:26:31 AM6/25/07
to

If the wiring really is that old then the only rational course is to rewire
the lot. If you don't then expect your insurance to be invalid if there is
evr a problem with it.

Peter Crosland

Lobster

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 3:52:39 AM6/25/07
to

Oh for goodness sake, stop scare-mongering... there's nothing
*inherently* wrong with 40-year-old wiring, in the sense that there most
likely would be if it was 60 or 80 years old. It will be PVC sheathed
and unlikely to have degraded, to a dangerous rip-it-out-and-start-again
level as you are suggesting. And as for the insurance issue - that's
just plain ridiculous. When did you last see a standard policy which
says that it will be invalidated if the wiring is more than 40 years
old? Or if the wiring has not been officially inspected?

To the OP - search the archives of this newsgroup for "Part P" - there's
loads of info on this stuff. Officially you'd need to submit a
building notice to do the work you suggest; the council would send round
an inspector. Probably cost something like 100 quid? They wouldn't
inspect the whole property though.

Apart from that though, you should probably have a Periodic Inspection
Report carried out separately by an electrician, especially if there
*is* any doubt about the safety of your existing wiring. There will
certainly be a fair amount of issues raised in such a report, since
obviously your installation won't be to modern standards (and chances
are the electrician *will* recommend rewiring (a) to cover his butt and
(b) in the hope of getting the work). You would be under no obligation
to act on the report, as you seem to be worried about; however at least
you'd know what you were up against and could make an informed decision.

David


RobertL

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 4:38:53 AM6/25/07
to
On Jun 25, 7:11 am, "Keith Dunbar" <k.dun...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Could someone please explain the new regs about home wiring. We've just
> moved in to a 400+ year old cottage, with thankfully a merely 40 year old
> wiring system - with additions of course, but certainly not with modern
> standards (i.e. relatively few single sockets). What do I have to do if I
> want to add to the existing system - e.g put a fan heater and a mirror light
> in the bathroom? I understand I need some sort of testing and certificate.
> How much would that cost?

AIUI, in my simplified way: In dry rooms (not kitchens bathrooms
etc) If you yourself don't have part P certification, you may add
sockets on spurs (max one spur per ring main socket, no "spur on a
spur") but may not extend the ring main itself. You can replace
sockets with double sockets, replace light fittings, replace lengths
of cable (including those in the ring main) if you think they are
damaged in some way.

However, in wet rooms and kitchens you may do much less. You may not
add a new circuit for example, although you may change the electrical
fittings on an existing circuit. You may not add an extractor fan
circuit. New circuits in wet rooms and kitchens require either
buidling control approval (and advance notice) if you are going to do
it yourself, or someone certified to part P to do it and then self
certify it.

I have read that 90% of DIY work that should be notified to BC is
actually not notified. On eBay you find people selling the 'old
colours' cable. Apparently people buy this so that the date when the
work was done appears to be before the new rules came into force.


Robert


Andy Hall

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 4:46:45 AM6/25/07
to

Utter bollocks.

There is no reason to completely re-do 40 year old wiring for safety
reasons provided that it really is only 40 years old. By that time PVC
wiring was in use and will not have deteriorated in this time. That
is not to say that this guarantees safety in that the wiring may have
been done incorrectly for the time, but that is possible at any time.

As to the notion that an insurance policy would be invalid, that is
complete nonsense. No policy that I have ever had or seen has such
an exclusion.

At this point, the sensible course of action, would be to obtain a
periodic inspection report. That would highlight aspects of the
wiring that do not meet modern standards e.g.

- Earth and circuit breaker arrangements if it is a TT system (fed by
overhead wires)

- Earth bonding of services like water and gas

- Damaged fittings


If there really is a paucity of outlets and fittings and considerable
additions are needed, it may make sense to start again on grounds of
practicality and consistency rather than safety. Most of the cost of
wiring is in the labour costs of gaining access to floor spaces,
chasing walls, making good and so on rather than in the materials.

Obviously those can be a DIY job.

Wiring can also be a DIY job, but then to conform with Part P of the
Building Regulations it is necessary to make a Building Notice
application at the local authority, who will then arrange inspection.

Doing wiring by "common sense" isn't a good idea. It should be done
in accordance with BS7671 (aka IEE Wiring Regulations). A Part P
inspection would pick that up.

There isn't a nit picking element to BS7671 - it does make sense and
has been developed over many years.

The bad aspects of Part P are that it allows members of certain trade
associations to self certify their work when there is no clear evidence
that that results in a raising of standards. The original basis for
it was to reduce the number of deaths from wiring problems - it has had
the reverse effect, and of course provides employment for bureaucrats
at the local authorities together with excitement for those who espouse
bureaucracy and regulation for its own sake as beneficial.

One approach that could be taken is to add in new wiring as though a
new installation is being done. This can certainly be done in stages
and then eventually the existing system phased out, effectively
neutralising it. However, this should be done with a good grounding
in what is required. Currently it is estimated that less than 2% of
DIY electrical installations are being notified to local authorities.
However, they do have the power to make the householder get it changed
if the BS7671 requirements have not been met.


Peter Crosland

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 6:24:05 AM6/25/07
to

A technival term I assume


>
> There is no reason to completely re-do 40 year old wiring for safety
> reasons provided that it really is only 40 years old. By that time
> PVC wiring was in use and will not have deteriorated in this time. That
> is not to say that this guarantees safety in that the wiring may
> have been done incorrectly for the time, but that is possible at any
> time.

If the wiring really is that old or indeed older because the OP apprantly
has no real idea then it is long overdue for a full inspection and very
probably needs a serious overhaul or complete replacement


>
> As to the notion that an insurance policy would be invalid, that is
> complete nonsense. No policy that I have ever had or seen has such
> an exclusion.

If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably refuse any
liability. There may not be a specific clause but they will, quite rightly,
expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.

At this point, the sensible course of action, would be to obtain a
> periodic inspection report. That would highlight aspects of the
> wiring that do not meet modern standards e.g.
>
> - Earth and circuit breaker arrangements if it is a TT system (fed by
> overhead wires)
>
> - Earth bonding of services like water and gas
>
> - Damaged fittings

Agreed.

> If there really is a paucity of outlets and fittings and considerable
> additions are needed, it may make sense to start again on grounds of
> practicality and consistency rather than safety. Most of the cost
> of wiring is in the labour costs of gaining access to floor spaces,
> chasing walls, making good and so on rather than in the materials.

Agreed. Which is why I said originally the logical course of action would be
to start from scratch. I would not expect anyone to do that without
professional advice before they did so.


> Obviously those can be a DIY job.

If the OP really is competent to do the job.

Peter Crosland

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 7:02:16 AM6/25/07
to
Peter Crosland wrote:

> Andy Hall wrote:

>> Utter bollocks.
>
> A technival term I assume

Yes, but appropriate. ;-)

>> There is no reason to completely re-do 40 year old wiring for safety
>> reasons provided that it really is only 40 years old. By that time
>> PVC wiring was in use and will not have deteriorated in this time. That
>> is not to say that this guarantees safety in that the wiring may
>> have been done incorrectly for the time, but that is possible at any
>> time.
>
> If the wiring really is that old or indeed older because the OP apprantly
> has no real idea then it is long overdue for a full inspection and very
> probably needs a serious overhaul or complete replacement

It may need lots of things to meet the demands of use in a modern home,
however the age of the wiring as stated is not in itself a major cause
for concern. There is a fair chance that the ring circuits have
undersized earth wires by modern standards, and are possibly combined
with rewireable fuses. These factors combined will reduce safely a
little, but not to the level of being dangerous in most cases.
Retrofitting a new consumer unit with RCD protection for these circuits
would mitigate this.

For information on dating old electrics, the OP may wish to read this
thread:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.d-i-y/browse_frm/thread/5a6aba9e6b4b7503/6b03d6bdddd41466#6b03d6bdddd41466

>> As to the notion that an insurance policy would be invalid, that is
>> complete nonsense. No policy that I have ever had or seen has such
>> an exclusion.
>
> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably refuse any
> liability. There may not be a specific clause but they will, quite rightly,
> expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.

If the householder admitted to having modified the wiring to a poor
standard then maybe, but highly unlikely in the case of moving in to a
new place for which you have no previous responsibility.

> Agreed. Which is why I said originally the logical course of action would be
> to start from scratch. I would not expect anyone to do that without
> professional advice before they did so.

Whilst this may be the simplest way in some cases it may represent more
cost than the OP wishes to take on. Assuming the state of the current
wiring is ok, it would be quite plausible to perhaps change the CU and
add new circuits[1]. Improving the safety of the old wiring into the
process.


[1] If the OP wants many new sockets etc it would make sense to place
these on new circuits rather than extend the old ones (even if this is
the kind inadvisable behaviour that part P encourages). It would also
make the new circuits much simpler to integrate into a new system should
the place be fully rewired later.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Andy Hall

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 7:07:27 AM6/25/07
to

Yep. About as technical as the original suggestion.


>>
>> There is no reason to completely re-do 40 year old wiring for safety
>> reasons provided that it really is only 40 years old. By that time
>> PVC wiring was in use and will not have deteriorated in this time. That
>> is not to say that this guarantees safety in that the wiring may
>> have been done incorrectly for the time, but that is possible at any
>> time.
>
> If the wiring really is that old or indeed older because the OP apprantly
> has no real idea then it is long overdue for a full inspection and very
> probably needs a serious overhaul or complete replacement

Obviously an inspection should be done, as it should be with change of
ownership. An age of 40 years does not imply complete replacement,
because PVC wiring does not deteriorate in the same way as rubber
covered wiring that predates this period.

>>
>> As to the notion that an insurance policy would be invalid, that is
>> complete nonsense. No policy that I have ever had or seen has such
>> an exclusion.
>
> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably refuse any
> liability.

Evidence?


> There may not be a specific clause but they will, quite rightly,
> expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.

Evidence?


>
> At this point, the sensible course of action, would be to obtain a
>> periodic inspection report. That would highlight aspects of the
>> wiring that do not meet modern standards e.g.
>>
>> - Earth and circuit breaker arrangements if it is a TT system (fed by
>> overhead wires)
>>
>> - Earth bonding of services like water and gas
>>
>> - Damaged fittings
>
> Agreed.
>
>> If there really is a paucity of outlets and fittings and considerable
>> additions are needed, it may make sense to start again on grounds of
>> practicality and consistency rather than safety. Most of the cost
>> of wiring is in the labour costs of gaining access to floor spaces,
>> chasing walls, making good and so on rather than in the materials.
>
> Agreed. Which is why I said originally the logical course of action would be
> to start from scratch. I would not expect anyone to do that without
> professional advice before they did so.
>
>
>> Obviously those can be a DIY job.
>
> If the OP really is competent to do the job.

Obviously.

>
> Peter Crosland


John Rumm

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 7:11:19 AM6/25/07
to
RobertL wrote:

> AIUI, in my simplified way: In dry rooms (not kitchens bathrooms
> etc) If you yourself don't have part P certification, you may add
> sockets on spurs (max one spur per ring main socket,

Indeed not usually desirable, you may however find some properties where
all the sockets are wired as spurs from a distribution ring circuit. The
guideline on number of spurs vs ring sockets is just that, a guideline -
not a hard and fast rule.

> no "spur on a
> spur")

You *can* do this if you make it a fused spur.

> but may not extend the ring main itself.

No, this is not correct - part P does allow for the extension of a
circuit outside of a special location as a non notifiable work. In fact
if you are adding sockets to an existing ring circuit then it is usually
preferable to add them into the ring where possible rather than as spurs.

> You can replace
> sockets with double sockets, replace light fittings, replace lengths
> of cable (including those in the ring main) if you think they are
> damaged in some way.

yup

> However, in wet rooms and kitchens you may do much less. You may not
> add a new circuit for example,

Adding a new circuit *anywhere* is notifiable under part P.

> although you may change the electrical
> fittings on an existing circuit. You may not add an extractor fan
> circuit. New circuits in wet rooms and kitchens require either
> buidling control approval (and advance notice) if you are going to do

You can forgo the "advance" part of the notice in an emergency to make
safe an installation.

> it yourself, or someone certified to part P to do it and then self
> certify it.
>
> I have read that 90% of DIY work that should be notified to BC is
> actually not notified. On eBay you find people selling the 'old
> colours' cable. Apparently people buy this so that the date when the
> work was done appears to be before the new rules came into force.

Which it does not since use of the new colours was permitted before the
start of part P and use of the old ones was permitted after the start of
part P (there was a two year transition from old to new).

Owain

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 7:14:32 AM6/25/07
to
Keith Dunbar wrote:
> .. And ... and this is what's really worrying me ...
> is that testing likely to show up problems with the existing wiring which I
> am then obliged to have corrected, even though the installation seems to
> have no obvious problems?

New wiring needs to comply with current regulations.

If an existing circuit is non-compliant then you should not attach new
wiring to it, but run a new circuit back to the consumer unit. The new
circuit would have to be compliant with main equipotential bonding
requirements, so if you don't have main equipotential bonding to
incoming services (water, gas, etc) then that would have to be added to
make the new circuit compliant.

If the wiring is cruddy now, it will be even cruddier in 20+ years time,
and presumably when you are in your dotage you will be less able or
inclined to do a full rewire, or possibly to afford to have it done.

Also, rewiring should preferably be done before redecorating, so you
aren't disturbing new decorations or having to make good unneccessarily.

One final point regarding insurance - in a 400 year old cottage the
insurers *are* quite likely to have policy conditions about the state of
the wiring, and the usual (10 year?) recommended inspection period is
likely to be decreased to every 5 or even 2 years. Especially if it's
thatched, MICC (mineral insulated copper clad / pyrotenax) wiring may be
specified. It's very suitable for many period properties as apart from
being almost indestructable it is quite unobtrusive for surface wiring.

I'll try and send you by email a PDF about wiring in old buildings -
which I think is from SPAB - which might be helpful

Owain

ARWadsworth

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 11:32:46 AM6/25/07
to

"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:118277121...@iris.uk.clara.net...

Could I have a copy please? I rarely work on such old houses but would love
a peek.

Adam

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 1:34:18 PM6/25/07
to
In article <467f97c5$0$8722$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,

Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably refuse
> any liability. There may not be a specific clause but they will, quite
> rightly, expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.

Where on earth did you hear such rubbish? They can't just invent
conditions.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Owain

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 1:58:49 PM6/25/07
to
ARWadsworth wrote:
>> I'll try and send you by email a PDF about wiring in old buildings -
>> which I think is from SPAB - which might be helpful
> Could I have a copy please? I rarely work on such old houses but would
> love a peek.

You may. It's an 8 page scanned PDF of a guidance note issued by SPAB.

Anyone with access to ConstructiOnline/Construction Information Service
can find it on there too.

Owain

Doctor Drivel

unread,
Jun 25, 2007, 8:05:01 PM6/25/07
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ef8981...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <467f97c5$0$8722$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably refuse
>> any liability. There may not be a specific clause but they will, quite
>> rightly, expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.
>
> Where on earth did you hear such rubbish? They can't just invent
> conditions.

What a dumbo. You have to maintain the system to acceptable levels.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 4:32:34 AM6/26/07
to
In article <4680c526$0$97234$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Doctor Drivel <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:

Now you claim to be an expert on electrics. From one who had to ask how to
wire a switch. Where did you buy this qualification from?

--
*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *

Message has been deleted

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 5:39:32 AM6/26/07
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <467f97c5$0$8722$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably refuse
>> any liability. There may not be a specific clause but they will, quite
>> rightly, expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.
>
> Where on earth did you hear such rubbish? They can't just invent
> conditions.
>
They can actually.

When I tpook out insurance on my (old) house, they wanted a surveyors
report, who duly notred amongst other hings teh large ash and maple
trees down teh side..thyey insisted that these be removed in a sensible
period..

In fact I removed the house instead, as the trees were in better
condition: They new house has 2.5m deep foundations at that point instead.

Doctor Drivel

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 6:23:32 AM6/26/07
to

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:118285084...@proxy02.news.clara.net...

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <467f97c5$0$8722$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
>> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably refuse
>>> any liability. There may not be a specific clause but they will, quite
>>> rightly, expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.
>>
>> Where on earth did you hear such rubbish? They can't just invent
>> conditions.
>>
> They can actually.

Yep. If an electrical system has been neglected they can refuse to pay out.
Read the small print.

manat...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 6:26:10 AM6/26/07
to
On Jun 26, 10:39 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <467f97c5$0$8722$ed261...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,

> > Peter Crosland <g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably refuse
> >> any liability. There may not be a specific clause but they will, quite
> >> rightly, expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.
>
> > Where on earth did you hear such rubbish? They can't just invent
> > conditions.
>
> They can actually.

No they can't.

>
> When I tpook out insurance on my (old) house, they wanted a surveyors
> report, who duly notred amongst other hings teh large ash and maple
> trees down teh side..thyey insisted that these be removed in a sensible
> period..

Thay can make whatever conditions they want at the time you purchase
the insurance but they can't just invent conditions when you claim,
which is the issue here.

MBQ

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 6:19:41 AM6/26/07
to
In article <118285084...@proxy02.news.clara.net>,

The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <467f97c5$0$8722$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> > Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably
> >> refuse any liability. There may not be a specific clause but they
> >> will, quite rightly, expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.
> >
> > Where on earth did you hear such rubbish? They can't just invent
> > conditions.
> >
> They can actually.

> When I tpook out insurance on my (old) house, they wanted a surveyors
> report, who duly notred amongst other hings teh large ash and maple
> trees down teh side..thyey insisted that these be removed in a sensible
> period..

But that's not inventing a condition after you've bought the insurance.
Which is a totally different matter.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 8:25:27 AM6/26/07
to
In article <4680e9b7$0$97233$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,

Doctor Drivel <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably
> >>> refuse any liability. There may not be a specific clause but they
> >>> will, quite rightly, expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.
> >>
> >> Where on earth did you hear such rubbish? They can't just invent
> >> conditions.
> >>
> > They can actually.

> Yep. If an electrical system has been neglected they can refuse to pay
> out. Read the small print.

Then that would be a specific clause, moron. Although how *you'd* be
expected to read small print when you obviously can't read normal size,
gawd knows.

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

Doctor Drivel

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 11:58:06 AM6/26/07
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ef8ffa...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <4680e9b7$0$97233$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
> Doctor Drivel <Min...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>> If the wiring is in bad condition then the insurer will probably
>> >>> refuse any liability. There may not be a specific clause but they
>> >>> will, quite rightly, expect the wiring tob inspected periodically.
>> >>
>> >> Where on earth did you hear such rubbish? They can't just invent
>> >> conditions.
>> >>
>> > They can actually.
>
>> Yep. If an electrical system has been neglected they can refuse to pay
>> out. Read the small print.
>
> Then

You must eff off as you are a plantpot.

Keith Dunbar

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 2:08:08 PM6/26/07
to
I have to confess I am still a bit confused. If I fit a new socket say, and
I get an electrician to come along and do whatever testing is now required,
will that test in any way be affected by the fact that the wiring in the
rest of the house may not be up to modern standards?

Keith

"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote in message

news:118279907...@proxy01.news.clara.net...

Keith Dunbar

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 2:17:40 PM6/26/07
to
Also, is there a book that explains good practice in simple, rather than
highly technical, terms, so that I can be sure any wiring I might wish to do
is of an acceptable standard?

Keith

"Keith Dunbar" <k.du...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:cCcgi.3210$KE1...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

Lurch

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 4:09:54 PM6/26/07
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:08:08 GMT, "Keith Dunbar" <k.du...@virgin.net>
mused:

>I have to confess I am still a bit confused. If I fit a new socket say, and
>I get an electrician to come along and do whatever testing is now required,
>will that test in any way be affected by the fact that the wiring in the
>rest of the house may not be up to modern standards?
>

Possibly, depends how you connect the socket and how bad\good the rest
of the house wiring is.
--
Regards,
Stuart.

Lurch

unread,
Jun 26, 2007, 4:10:07 PM6/26/07
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:17:40 GMT, "Keith Dunbar" <k.du...@virgin.net>
mused:

>Also, is there a book that explains good practice in simple, rather than

>highly technical, terms, so that I can be sure any wiring I might wish to do
>is of an acceptable standard?
>

BS7671.
--
Regards,
Stuart.

Andy Wade

unread,
Jun 30, 2007, 11:15:46 AM6/30/07
to
Andy Hall wrote:

> [...]


> because PVC wiring does not deteriorate in the same way as rubber
> covered wiring that predates this period.

That might be literally true, but some PVC cable of the period certainly
has deteriorated. Have you ever come across the "green goo" problem?
It's not very common, but it has come up on this NG on at least one
previous occasion.

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/consult.php?action=main&mode=consult&id=2861&universe=home
provides an explanation.

--
Andy

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages