17 edition PIR fault code

[GaryMo]

Why should I ask the NICEIC? I have no interest in them.

Do you accept that a PIR is a report comparing the installation to the CURRENT version of the regulations and that the installation date has nothing to do with it?

 

[FingRinal]

Yes. (EDIT - partly)

which is why if it's a 17th installation PIR'd to the 17th, it's a CODE 2. Whereas if it's a 16th installation PIR'd to the 17th, it's a CODE 4.

A major revision in the 17th is the inclusion of RCD protection for cables not buried more than 50mm or in earthed conduit. To subject such a fundamental change in a current (17th) installation to a Code 4 in a (17th)PIR is negligent.

 

[FingRinal]

Why should I ask the NICEIC? I have no interest in them.

Do you accept that a PIR is a report comparing the installation to the CURRENT version of the regulations and that the installation date has nothing to do with it?

Because you mentioned their document (in all but name).

It's a code 4, simple as that.

Also bear in mind that a single code 2 would mean an unsatisfactory PIR according to the ESC.

"It would not be reasonable to indicate a satisfactory’ assessment if any observation in the report had been given a Code 1 or Code 2 recommendation. The recommended interval until the next inspection should be made conditional upon all the Code 1 and Code 2 departures being rectified without undue delay."

Make sure your professional indemnity insurance is valid!

 

[dingbat]

Jeez!

 

[EdwardCurrent]

Hello,

I am currently a sub -contract 'house basher', the site will be handed over in @ 2 months. We are installing to my bosses interpretation of the 16th.
How many installs are being installed to he 17th at present, when it is not necessary to do so ??

Not bickering, just curious,

Regards

Ed

 

[Adam_151]

The main issue I was addressing was the fact that you seemed to be advocating a code 2 in some cases and a code 4 in others depending on installation date. I don't see why the coding should differ if the installation was done in 2008, 2006, or just landed in the street after falling through a gap in time and space!

But as you are questiong my justification for code 4, that is simply that it would have met the relevant British Standard the previous year and general attitudes to risk are slow to change*, and if it was acceptable in 2007, it shouldn't as be dangerous as to need improvement ASAP now!

If I was changing the board, then I would carry out the work to BS7671:2008, and as RCD protection is required for the lighting circuit in question, then I would no more fail to install RCD protection, than I would install a C32 MCB for it! (regardless of whether it was fused at whatever the fusing current of a paperclip is before or not )


*the general attitude to risk changes over time, and common sense evolves with it, once upon a time we had cars without ABS, ESP, airbags, crumple zones, NCAP ratings, Pre-tensioners and even seatbelts themselves, and that was pretty acceptable at the time, but slowly but surly things have evolved, and those things are the norm on new vehciles these days (and common sense has changed these days...people drive worse because they feel the car will look after them)

Same with electric heaters, heating elements you could touch were acceptable at the time, people knew not to touch them!, but we have changed over the years, its a slow process though

 

[FingRinal]

Maybe some people misread my first reply post:

For a 17th Edition installation, it would be a Code 2 (assuming no RCD protection). For a 16th edition installation it would be a Code 4.

 

[FingRinal]

Adam,

the installation date can make a difference.

We are on the cusp of a major Reg change so I'm trying to give an answer that suits both.

It is unreasonable to condemn an installation PIR'd to the 17th on 1st July 2008 which was installed to the 16th on 30th June 2008. If this is thought to be acceptable, then we have to consider what difference two days makes, or 2 weeks, or 2 months. This is one reason why I think it is wrong to condemn an installation as unsatisfactory because of just one Code 2.

The implications of Code 2's can vary. A single Code 2 may render an installation unsatisfactory, but I would argue that is not always the case. For the poor suffering customer, it means that they may well be forced into paying for expensive remedial work which may not offer a proportionate improvement in the safety of their installation. I think the ESC advice in this instance is a disservice to the public it purports to look out for. It seems to reduce the role of the inspector to the lowest level.

 

[Adam_151]

It is unreasonable to condemn an installation PIR'd to the 17th on 1st July 2008 which was installed to the 16th on 30th June 2008. If this is thought to be acceptable, then we have to consider what difference two days makes, or 2 weeks, or 2 months. This is one reason why I think it is wrong to condemn an installation as unsatisfactory because of just one Code 2.

It is indeed unreasonable, so this becomes a sanity check, it would be unreasonable to offer an unsatisfactory verdict on something which would have met the relevant standard but 2 weeks ago, I also consider it unreasonable to count it as anything other than a code four, on the back of that, once we have bashed out the severity of the issue itself, it matters not when it was actually installed, time itself does not change much!

The implications of Code 2's can vary. A single Code 2 may render an installation unsatisfactory, but I would argue that is not always the case. For the poor suffering customer, it means that they may well be forced into paying for expensive remedial work which may not offer a proportionate improvement in the safety of their installation. I think the ESC advice in this instance is a disservice to the public it purports to look out for. It seems to reduce the role of the inspector to the lowest level.

On that point, at least, you and I remain in agreement, we do have to be careful not to use that as an argument to code trival issues as a code two though, technically speaking, anything which doesn't meet the relevant standard "requires improvement" and we might as well not bother having a 4

 

[securespark]

It's a code 4, simple as that.

I agree totally, but I'm curious as to why FR thinks it should make a difference

He doesn't carry out PIR's?

He's an armchair electrician?

 

[daytona]

Hello,

I am currently a sub -contract 'house basher', the site will be handed over in @ 2 months. We are installing to my bosses interpretation of the 16th.
How many installs are being installed to he 17th at present, when it is not necessary to do so ??

Not bickering, just curious,

Regards

Ed

personally,i have plenty of jobs going under the 16th.i have one job starting next month(about 3 years worth)which is all being done under the 17th,although its not necessary to do so at the mo(client request).its not my contract btw,more im just grabbing a load of work off of it(hence my question as every property will require a pir up front).it seems my first thought was right anyway,more me questioning myself after a 'difference of opinion' on site today!

thanks for all the constructive posts lads

 

[FingRinal]

Adam,

time changes things in as much as a PIR will take into account whether the installation was carried out to the same edition as the PIR being undertaken or an earlier edition.

An example can be found in the 16th OSG (PIR example). It gives a Code 4 for main bonding sized to the 15th. Now, if records are available and the records show that the installation was carried out to the 16th, should the observation be a Code 4 or a Code 2? In this case I would be inclined to give it a Code 2 as it has never complied with any edition.

 

[GaryMo]

Where does it say that Code 4 means a item complied with a previous edition of the wiring regulations but doesn't comply with the current edition?

Everything I come across mentions only the current edition with no mention at all of any previous editions.

Surely if it doesn't comply with the current edition then it's a code 4. If it's a potential danger then it's down the the inspector to code as he sees fit, possibly upgrading to a code 2.

 

[Adam_151]

I'm starting to see the angle that you are coming from, but I don't really agree with it on the whole

If the main equipotential bonds were sized according to the 15th, and the certificate claimed compliance with the 16th, then it might indicate that the installer was ignorant of the standard to which he was supposedly installing to, and you ought to be on the watch out for other departures of a similar nature.

In addition, you could also report the failure of the initial inspection and testing to pick up this deviation and thus the fact that the certification claims compliance with a standard when there was no such compliance (that would be instead of the usual one about there being no certification for the original installion then ) however this would a minor point in the grand sheme of things

 

[FingRinal]

Where does it say that Code 4 means a item complied with a previous edition of the wiring regulations but doesn't comply with the current edition?

Nowhere. It's an example of a Code 4 found in the OSG. That's all.

Surely if it doesn't comply with the current edition then it's a code 4. If it's a potential danger then it's down the the inspector to code as he sees fit, possibly upgrading to a code 2.

That's right. But do you advocate that a 16th edition compliant installation must be ugraded to the 17th on 1st July 2008?

If so, then give a cable in a 16th installation and routed in compliance with the 16th a Code 2 when PIRing it to the 17th and follow the ESC guidance to give the installation an Unsatisfactory assessment. Then explain to the customer that they now have to pay for expensive remedial work when just the day before everything was fine.

If not, we can apply a degree of judgement to either give it a Code 2 but an overall Satisfactory (in defiance of the ESC guidance), or give it a Code 4 and an overall Satisfactory (assuming no other observations).

My remit is to my clients. To advise them on how to comply with current legislation and regulation. It is not to act as an unpaid enforcer of the IEE, Government, Scheme, other etc. It is not to diddle them into accepting unneccessary work.