I gently suggest it is this type of analogy approach that has got the industry into such a regulatory tangle in the first place. It really is much simpler, and certainly way more appropriate, to consistently apply the principles of law to the understanding of law (and regulations) in my opinion. It is bound to produce a far better quality product that requires less divine intervention to decipher and understand.
Let me try to restore your faith in the principles of law a little.
In my own quest for clarity, I have now gone hunting for references to section 6.11 in section 5, and found 5.1.3.1 which reads
This plainly applies to a new electrical installation only, otherwise why include the word "new". If it had been the intent that it applies to all electrical installations (and all supplies for that matter), it should have read -A new electrical installation shall not be connected to the supply unless the supply includes a protective conductor. (See also 6.11 and 8.7.3.)
"An electrical installation shall not be connected to a supply unless the supply includes a protective conductor. (See also 6.11 and 8.7.3.)"
So in the instance where we are dealing with an existing installation, we are effectively directed to look elsewhere. If this was not the intent, those with input into these codes need to ensure the words match their intent.
Fortunately the balance of 5.1.3 does go on to deal further with earthing, bonding etc. issues, so happily it's not like that's the end of the matter.
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.