In a recent conversation I was asked if pressing the “Test” button on an RCD was mandatory. To investigate that claim, I imagined the following case…
Minutes from Court Records in the case of Messrs Bodgit & Scarper Versus Mrs A Smith.
Clerk of Court: All Rise.
Judge enters, the Clerk of the Court tells all “You may now sit”.
Judge introduces himself. Briefly mentions Council for the Prosecution and Council for the Defence. He then asks Council for the Prosecution to present their case.
Prosecution: "Your Honour, we allege that Mrs Alicia Smith of 39 Arcacia Avenue has wilfully disregarded the requirements of BS7671 with regard to not pressing the "Test" button every 6 months!"
The Judge: Well, hold on a minute. As council for the prosecution, who is the “We” you represent?
Prosecution: I was contacted and appointed by Bodgit & Scarper Electrical Contractors who discovered this shocking offence.
Judge: And how did B&S discover this aberration of justice exactly? Just for background of course.
Prosecution: B&S were called in by Mrs Smith to repair a faulty light in her outdoor toilet. Whilst interrogating, I mean discussing, the electrical installation with the Defendant (Mrs Smith) it emerged that she had not pressed the RCD Test button within the last year!
Judge: Gad, the horror! And just out of curiosity, how old is Mrs Smith?
Prosecution: Court documents indicate she is 87 years of age your Honour.
Judge: Well I suppose we'd better get a move on if the scales of justice are to show their worth today. So let us proceed. Would the prosecution care to enlighten this court where this a requirement to press the aforementioned Test button comes from?
Prosecution: Yes sir, it is covered in BS7671.
Judge: And BS7671 is?
Prosecution: It is published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology. It’s full title is “Requirements for Electrical Installations, IET Wiring Regulations, Eighteenth Edition).
Judge: That sounds very erudite and impressive. So these regulations clearly state that this “Test” button must be operated every 6 months then?
Prosecution: Yes your honour. Regulation 514.12.2 requires a notice stating the requirement to push the test button every 6 months shall be affixed by the electrical installer or last Electrician to test the installation.
Defence: Objection. Obfuscation your honour. Does the prosecution maintain that BS7671 actually states the “Test” button shall be operated every 6 months?
Prosecution: It is clear that Regulation 514.12.2 states the “Test” label must be affixed.
Judge: So, to be “clear” does this regulation, or anywhere else in BS7671 state the requirement to press the “Test” button, or does it simply state that the notice describing this act must be in place?
Prosecution: It does state the requirement on the label Your Honour.
Judge: So from a legal point of view, BS7671 states that the notice or label must be affixed. It does not state the requirement to actually press the “Test” button?
Prosecution: Apparently not My Lord.
Judge: And does BS7671 clearly state where that notice or label shall be affixed?
Prosecution: (after a hurried exchange with Bert Scarper) M'lud, BS7671 states "shall be fixed in a prominent position at or near each RCD in the installation."
Judge: And was this notice so fixed? Prosecution: It was indeed your honour.
Judge: I will now hear from Council for the Defence.
Defence: Thank you your honour. I have several strands of evidence and mitigating circumstances relating to this case. First I would like to draw the court's attention to "Exhibit A". A photograph of the fuseboard to which the notice was attached. The court will note the scale marked off shows the bottom level of the fuseboard to be at a height of 2 metres from floor level.
Judge: And was the notice in a prominent position?
Defence: It was indeed your honour. If you took the cover off of the cupboard enclosing the fuseboard you could probably see the notice in place.
Judge: Assuming that the cupboard door was able to be opened, would Mrs Smith be able to read the notice.
Defence: Oh I'm sure she could your honour but as she is only 1.5 metres tall and unable to levitate she would have to at least stand on a chair and risk her 87 year old neck in doing so.
Judge: Hmm. Council for the Prosecution, what is the maximum legal penalty this court can impose for this flagrant dereliction of regard to regulations?
Prosecution: Umm, well I can’t seem to actually find anything exactly for this crime.
Judge: So how do you propose to invoke the punishment you seek?
Prosecution: Well, in the case of "Codshead versus Fishface" a precedent was established in 1922 where two cyclists, a Mr Codshead collided with a Mr Fishface. It was then judged that because Mr Fishface had not maintained his bicycle bell properly as recommended in the Chinese instruction manual. Mr Codshead could not hear Mr Fishface coming and collided with him resulting in a buckled mudguard on Mr Codsheads bicycle. The final judgement was that Mr Codshead won the case and was awarded 2 shillings and sixpence plus costs against Mr Fishface. All due your Honour, to a failure to properly maintain equipment as recommended.
Judge: Hmm, fascinating. Council for the Defence, what is your next strand of evidence in this case?
Defence: M'lud, every apprentice electrician is asked the following question in exams: Is BS7671 a Statutory Document? Answer - No, it is a Code of Practice. It is not enforceable by law. It can however be presented as supplementary evidence in a court of law but is not final.
Judge: So your telling me that what is called a “Regulation” isn’t exactly a Regulation, in fact it is more of a recommendation then?
Defence: So it would appear Sir. It provides a framework for good working practice that if complied with should ensure safe and robust electrical installations. However, on its own it is not a statutory document.
Prosecution: Objection! I am reliably informed that BS7671 is the first and foremost document covering good electrical installation practice. It is a much respected publication and is recognised, even adopted around the globe as the perfect guide to electrical installation work.
Judge: Council for the Prosecution, your objection is noted but the Defence simply stated a truth. BS7671 is not a statutory document.
Judge: So when is a Regulation not a “Regulation”? It would appear when its in BS7671.
Prosecution: I see your point your honour, but it can be used as supporting evidence in a court of law and does in some instances, interlock with other statutory documents such as EAWR.
Judge: So in this current case does the Health and Safety at Work Act make Mrs Smith in clear contravention of her duty?
Defence: Your honour, as the name implies, the Health and Safety at Work Act relates to the workplace, Mrs Smith is at home.
Judge: Council for the Prosecution, will you please approach the bench.
Judge: You sir, are a nincompoop. You have wasted taxpayers money and are in danger of bringing this court into disrepute. I am awarding Mrs Smith £25,000 damages from your client and also require your client to pay full costs for this hearing. You are lucky I'm in a good mood otherwise I would send both you and your clients to dance the Tyburn jig at the end of a rope. Court dismissed.