ADVICE - Qualifications to TEST house wiring ?

[ban-all-sheds]

These books look interesting. Are they any good?

Not really.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I said, you'd have to ask lawyers about that.

Not really. You asked the question and I have tried to answer it.
If that is your response then you should not have asked the question here but asked a lawyer.

For a start, particularly given that no-one is forced to become a member of NICEIC (or any other scheme provider, come to that), I'm not sure that the law would be particularly interested in whether the rules for their members were 'reasonable' or not.

I think it would. Official bodies are not allowed to make unreasonable (in law) demands.

You seem to be suggesting that is is 'reasonable' for them to require strict compliance with BS7671, but not reasonable for them to require 'compliance' with the OSG. As I've said, I'm not sure that there's that much difference, given that the law requires compliance with neither.

I have explained.
One accepted way of satisfying the demands of Part P is to follow BS7671. If the OSG says something else then it is irrelevant.
It is one condition for being able to self-certify. It seems quite reasonable to me although BS7671 itself allows working to other standards.
Are you saying you think it is unreasonable?

I am never quite sure why it is always so emphasized that BS7671 is not statutory (it has been a question in every course I have ever taken).
Do you think it is that they say I must follow it but there's nothing they can do if I don't?

You are saying that BS7671 has "accepted authority", but I'm not really sure what that actually means,

As above.

particularly in law (since, as I've said, no law that I know of requires compliance with BS7671),

As above.

and also given that the OSG is published by one of the co-authors of BS7671 (with an acknowledgement for 'the contribution of' the other co-author) - does that give it 'less authority'?

Yes. The clue is in its name.
The same as ADP or any other of the plethora of guides available.

I do not have a copy. Is there anything in it which states (to the effect) that it is generally worst-case examples which are bound to comply with BS7671 but one is free to actually follow BS7671 (or any other standard)?
There also probably is a disclaimer stating it is not responsible for mistakes.

 

[JohnW2]

Not really. You asked the question and I have tried to answer it.

I'm not sure what question you think I asked. This exchange started because I suggested that an organisation (membership of which is voluntary) could probably impose on its members whatever 'requirements' took their fancy - and you responded by talking about "legally 'reasonable' " requirements.

I think it would. Official bodies are not allowed to make unreasonable (in law) demands.

It's a rather odd sort of "official body". No-one is forced to join it and, as far as I know, the only 'official' thing about it is that membership (of it or one of the other schemes) is necessary in order to be able to self-certify. That some customers are only porepared to employ NICEIC-registered electricians is their business, and nothing to do with anything 'official'.

I have explained. One accepted way of satisfying the demands of Part P is to follow BS7671..... It is one condition for being able to self-certify.

It is. However, perhaps ironically, people who do not self-certify are, at least in theory, free to use methods other than compliance with BS7671 to demonstrate satisfaction of the requirements of Part P.

As you say, one condition of being able to self-certify is to fully comply with BS7671. It seems that another condition is that one must have an up-to-date copy of the OSG. Since you believe that such organisations are only able to impose 'legally reasonable' requirements, you presumably must think that it is 'legally reasonable' for them to require that members have such a book - but how 'reasonable' is it to require members to have the book if there is not also some requirement that they look at it and in some way 'acts upon' whatever it says?

I am never quite sure why it is always so emphasized that BS7671 is not statutory (it has been a question in every course I have ever taken).

It's a pity that stillp got fed up with this place, since he could probably answer more authoritatively, but I don't think a Standard can, in practice, ever, in itself, be 'statutory'. To achieve that would presumably require legislation which insisted on compliance with something over which they have no direct control and which can (and does) change quite frequently.

I do not have a copy. Is there anything in it which states (to the effect) that it is generally worst-case examples which are bound to comply with BS7671 but one is free to actually follow BS7671 (or any other standard)?

.... It [the OSG] includes material not included in BS7671, provides background to the intentions of BS7671 and gives other sources of information. However, this guide does not ensure compliance with BS7671. It is a simple guide to the requirements of BS7671, and electricians ans electrical installers should always consult BS7671 to satisfy themselves of compliance.

Given that it is co-authored by the BSI and IET (the same authors as BS7671 itself) one imagines that the "background to the intentions of BS7671" represent a fairly authoritative indication of how the authors of BS7671 intend it to be interpreted.

There also probably is a disclaimer stating it is not responsible for mistakes.

.... While the author, publisher and contributors believe that the information and guidance in this work are correct, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making use of them. The author, publisher and contributors do not assume any liability to anyone for .... etc. etc.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's a rather odd sort of "official body". No-one is forced to join it and, as far as I know, the only 'official' thing about it is that membership (of it or one of the other schemes) is necessary in order to be able to self-certify. That some customers are only porepared to employ NICEIC-registered electricians is their business, and nothing to do with anything 'official'.

Depends what you mean by official.
https://www.gov.uk/building-regulations-competent-person-schemes

It is. However, perhaps ironically, people who do not self-certify are, at least in theory, free to use methods other than compliance with BS7671 to demonstrate satisfaction of the requirements of Part P.

They, then, have to abide by the Local Authority.

As you say, one condition of being able to self-certify is to fully comply with BS7671. It seems that another condition is that one must have an up-to-date copy of the OSG. Since you believe that such organisations are only able to impose 'legally reasonable' requirements, you presumably must think that it is 'legally reasonable' for them to require that members have such a book - but how 'reasonable' is it to require members to have the book if there is not also some requirement that they look at it and in some way 'acts upon' whatever it says?

No. I think it is unreasonable to insist on the OSG.

 

[bilabonic]

99.99% mine is red !!!

I'll look into the C&G course, of course it's down the 'tester' with regard's how you test, what you class etc..

BUT it's hardly 'rocket science' !!!

 

[JohnW2]

Depends what you mean by official.

Indeed, as I implied, it is 'official' in (and only in) the context of self-certification. However, the official stuff (and, I presume, legislation) about CPSs only talks about the minimum standards to be imposed on members by Competent Person Schemes, the implication being that providers can impose more stringent/extensive requirements if they so wish. Unfortunately, the link to "electrical minimum technical competencies" (from www.gov.uk) is to a non-available page on the IET website, so we don't know what those 'minimum requirements' are (it might just be an attempt at a link to BS7671)!

No. I think it is unreasonable to insist on the OSG.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Presumably others must disagree with you, if, as you suggest, "legally unreasonable requirements" are 'not allowed'?

Don't get me wrong - as you know, I'm no supporter of the OSG - particularly in relation to the bits which seem to have crept into it which appear to have no basis in BS7671 itself.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

In the past the C&G2391 and cut down version C&G2392 were considered as the exam required to do inspecting and testing, not sure if exam still done. As to books, there was a series of 7 books done by the IEE as it was then, now IET and book 3 covered inspecting and testing. There has been some talk on here about what is tested, like figure of 8 wiring on a ring final, but it was always the book used.

I would likely to know what is required myself, I read about having to need to show resent training, I am unsure as to what that refers to, possible attending IET lectures, or simply tool box meetings? As far as I am aware the only law as such is for Scottish domestic properties which are let out? Rest of the country there is no law covering this, however clearly one wants insurance cover, so the real point is what do insurers require?

What you are doing is giving a professional report, so professional indemnity insurance is required, this is some times included in a more general policy, but I know of no court case where the person doing an EICR has been taken to court, I am sure there are some, but British Law is mainly built up of case law, so it would need a lot of reading.

The point is if you miss something what would be the result? So to work this out we look at a scenario, then ask our selves what would we expect a court to do? However it needs to be proved it happened due to being missed in an EICR. So a simple broken ring could happen at any time, can't normally show it was broken before the inspection. So looking as 32A MCB's feeding a circuit with 2.5 mm² cable and multi outlets, OK I have found one, a 4 mm² cable fed series of sockets, then reduced to 2.5 mm² cable fed more sockets, then returned to 4 mm² cable and fed yet more sockets. Clearly some one thought they were extending a ring final. However it had been like that for many years without causing a fire, so unlikely to be an investigation so unlikely anyone missing it in an EICR would end up in court.

And here we come to nitty gritty, unless something rather blatant is missed, then unlikely it would result in a court case, so lets say a consumer unit which would normally be supplied with blanks which need fitting before the lid is fitted, by turning in the hole for MCB's is replaced with blanks designed for those consumer units which even if no blanks fitted you can't touch live parts, so simply clip into place. And then lets say a young child is able to remove the blank without a tool and is killed, this would result in a court case. Would the person who did the EICR be found guilty? No one even untrained would leave a smashed socket without repairing, so it has to be some thing like wrong type of blank in a consumer unit for anyone to miss it.

So two points, one very unlikely a child would be allowed to play near a consumer unit to be able to remove the blank, so a scenario like this must be very rare. And the second is if the fault is some thing reasonable for an inspector to spot?

So in real terms some one could be doing EICR's for 60 years without such a scenario happening, so only with Domestic in Scotland is there anything to stop some one with a small amount of training doing the EICR.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

These books look interesting. Are they any good?

Not really.

I should have said they are OK as a learning resource, of the "read things and absorb knowledge" variety, but not particularly good value, unless picked up cheap on fleaBay.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Official bodies are not allowed to make unreasonable (in law) demands.

1) NICEIC is not an official body.
2) I think you are exaggerating the unreasonableness of being asked to buy a £20 book.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Depends what you mean by official.
https://www.gov.uk/building-regulations-competent-person-schemes.

There is an official requirement for me to have car insurance.

That does not make car insurers official bodies.

And in this case it's even more tenuous, as there is no official requirement for anybody to join a CP scheme.

 

[ericmark]

When I took BS7671:2001 exam C&G2381 there were questions from the on-site guide, there were some objections as the Union also did an on-site guide which many felt was better. When I took the BS7671:2008 exam C&G2382 there were no questions from the on-site guide, it seems they had taken some notice to objections, or maybe it was that at the time the OSG had not been published.

However I have noted over the years how cables bunched together as a loom actually are not damaged after a massive overload, yet the wires in free air have lost all insulation and failed. Yet the OSG seem to think there is a limit to cables in conduit due to heat, OK there may be equipment which is always running on the max for every cable, but in the main, if it will physically fit, then there is not a problem going way over what the OSG says can be put into conduit.

I am sure this is repeated many times, back I think from memory the 14th Edition had the OSG as part of the regulations, the problem was new things came out which were simply not covered, an example was stating a minimum distance of a socket from a sink, I know I have a remotely switched socket within 6 inches of my sink supplying the waste disposal unit and since under the sink protected from any splashes, this was not allowed with 14th edition.

It was the old "complies with previous edition" now no longer a coding which caused me a problem, I did not have all the old editions so how would I know? Some items are well documented like earths on lighting circuits, but although the 14th was a previous edition of the wiring regulations, it was not a previous edition of BS7671 as that only started with 16th Edition.

I am sure if you inspect and test every day you can list all the faults and the reference to BS7671. However I know for example without a RCD on lights I need bonding in bathroom, but with RCD's on all circuits I don't, but to put the reference to BS7671 it would take far to long to write the report. However po bodies nerfict and when some one codes an EICR in error, without that reference one can be left scratching ones head trying to work out what the tester had seen.

 

[EFLImpudence]

1) NICEIC is not an official body.

NICEIC was/is just a trade organisation but surely that part of it which is now a competent person scheme authorised by a Government department is sort of official.

2) I think you are exaggerating the unreasonableness of being asked to buy a £20 book.

Ok.

 

[JohnW2]

Ok.

I would personally say that it is 'unreasonable' (and certainly daft and pointless) to require people to possess an up-to-date copy of the OSG IF there is not also a requirement to make some use of it (e.g. 'comply' with its guidelines) - just as it would be silly to require certain workers to possess PPE, but not requirement for them to wear/use it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

It was the old "complies with previous edition" now no longer a coding which caused me a problem

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/...test-house-wiring.499879/page-4#ixzz5Alu4APkP

Eric
The old C4 code stated "Does not comply with current regs". It never referred to old versions.