codes

[kfelec]

im doing a periodic on a commercial workshop and in the workshop they have recessed fluorescent modular fittings with the covers missing

they are out of reach but you can see the cables going into the connection block

what code would be required for this?

im thinking a code 2 but im not a 100%

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What do you think makes it dangerous?

 

[ericmark]

The old codes were:-
Code 1: Indicates immediate danger
The installation is a risk to the user; therefore, the inspector should take appropriate action without delay to remove the danger.

Code 2: Requires improvement
This code should be used to indicate that the observed fault requires action to remove potential danger.

Code 3: Requires further investigation
Indicates that the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not be fully identified and should be investigated further.

Code 4: Does not comply with the current issue of BS 7671
Used to show that certain items of the installation don’t comply with the requirement of the current issue of BS 7671 but are not deemed a risk to the user. The inspector should show consideration to suggest benefits of improving those parts of the installation.

I remember reading these have now changed was a PIR now it's an Electrical Installation Condition Report and dropped from four codes to three.

Code C1, C2, and C3 see http://www.select.org.uk/downloads/BestPracticeGuide4-Issue3.pdf so we have danger, potential danger, and improvements recommended.

If the lamps comply with IPXXD or IP4X then I would give C3 but if not then one has to consider a C1. Placing out of reach is an option with some items see 417. 2.5 meters is quite high but I would agree it is not easy to decide at times what code to give.

I am not sure if I like the new codes with the old system for us it was more cut and dried but the idea was for it to be better for the customer. Where it does not comply with the current issue of BS 7671 was to me useful as it informed the customer that before any work is carried out it may need upgrading. However recommending improvements does not really cover that.

The point is of course if it complies with IPXXD or IP4X or 2.5 meters then C3 if not it has immediate danger so C1 can't see how it could be C2?

 

[securespark]

If I am in any doubt, I put the more onerous code.

 

[kfelec]

sorry for not replying back quicker bas,

i just thought because u could touch the connection and the connection blocks were quite worn it would need improvemet

what do you think?

 

[martinxxxxxx]

So there are exposed live conductors then?

But out of reach?

 

[ericmark]

I have found it hard to decide if any non electrical fault should be included in a report. For example wrong type of lights in a room where there are computers.

Often to include it with the main report will cause problems as the customer wants a plane satisfactory or unsatisfactory with no grey areas to present to the insurers.

I would agree with "securespark" better to use the more onerous code. However consider what rule it breaches can you say it does not comply with 417.3? or 416.2.3? if it does not comply with a regulation then easy it has failed and in real terms does not really matter which code is used as it will need correction so using the more onerous code is not a problem.

The only real question is does it or does it not comply?

 

[kfelec]

martinxxxx. yes thats what im thinking.

 

[bernardgreen]

I have found it hard to decide if any non electrical fault should be included in a report. For example wrong type of lights in a room where there are computers.

I always informally mention to clients things which I consider are a hazard in their premises. Very often they have not realised that there is a hazard there.

I don't do PIRs but I do supply / install in factories and offices equipment I have designed and while doing this frequently see situations where "improvement is possible".

What is worrying is that often the staff have realised the potential hazard but have done nothing about it due sometimes to fear of upsetting management.

 

[bernardgreen]

Double post deleted

 

[martinxxxxxx]

martinxxxx. yes thats what im thinking.

Then it is a code 1 really as placing out of reach is not acceptable if it is not under supervision of skill persons etc...

 

[RF Lighting]

Is there an immediate risk of death / injury / fire?

 

[JohnW2]

Is there an immediate risk of death / injury / fire?

I guess that if someone climbed up a metal ladder and then touched the exposed live conductors, there presumably could be. As has been mentioned, the question is whether or not placing the hazard 'out of reach' (without use of a ladder) downgrades the level of the hazard/code. I don't know the answer.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RF Lighting]

Have a read of the ESC's guide to periodic reporting.

Which of these statements best fits the situation in the OP?

"The persons using the installation are at risk. The person ordering the report should be advised to take action without delay to remedy the observed deficiency in the installation, or to take appropriate action (such as switching off and isolating the affected parts of the installation) to remove the danger."


or


"The person ordering the report should be advised that, whilst the safety of those using the installation may not be at immediate risk, remedial action should be taken as soon as possible to improve the safety of the installation"

 

[JohnW2]

Which of these statements best fits the situation in the OP?
"The persons using the installation are at risk. The person ordering the report should be advised to take action without delay to remedy the observed deficiency in the installation, or to take appropriate action (such as switching off and isolating the affected parts of the installation) to remove the danger."
or
"The person ordering the report should be advised that, whilst the safety of those using the installation may not be at immediate risk, remedial action should be taken as soon as possible to improve the safety of the installation"

I guess one's answer to that question depends entirely upon how likely one thinks it is that someone will go up a stepladder in the vicinity of the fitting, whether in relation to the fitting (e.g. to change tubes, or investigate malfunction) or for an unrelated reasosn (maybe something else nearby that might involve the use of a step ladder, even decorating or other unrelated maintenance)- wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John