EICR advice and costs... help.

[RF Lighting]

Would you give a wired fuse in the neutral conductor or a water pipe used as the main earth a code bearing in mind that it was satisfactorily installed at the time?

 

[JohnW2]

Oh ok because lack of RCDs presents a greater risk than lack of SPD so it gets a higher code.... More dangerous = higher code. I don’t see what’s difficult to understand about that.

Exactly. Not a difficult concept to understand but it is inevitably an individual judgment as to whether something is sufficiently 'more dangerous' than something else to warrant a higher code..

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Would you give a wired fuse in the neutral conductor or a water pipe used as the main earth a code bearing in mind that it was satisfactorily installed at the time?

Either would obviously deserve 'a code' (i.e. at least a C3), presumably in everyone's mind.

I also imagine that most/all people would also say that both deserved C2s - on the basis of their personal judgment about 'potential danger'

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

However, his [eric's] argument then seems to be on the basis that "if it were not potentially dangerous in 1992, then it is not potentially dangerous today" ....

It has occurred to me to wonder whether eric's argument could perhaps be turned on it's head ....

... what if, contrary to the then-current regulations, work had been done at a time when BS7671 required all sorts of supplementary bonding (which would not be required today) but without all that supplementary bonding having been installed? That would have been regarded by BS7671 as 'not safe' (aka 'potentially dangerous') at the time it was installed - so could eric not argue that "if it was not safe (i.e. 'potentially dangerous') when installed, then it is still unsafe ('potentially dangerous') today?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I was thinking similar - in that if people think the lack of RCDs (or anything else) today renders the installation "potentially dangerous", then before these new devices or rules the compliant installation must have always been "potentially dangerous".

 

[JohnW2]

I was thinking similar - in that if people think the lack of RCDs (or anything else) today renders the installation "potentially dangerous", then before these new devices or rules the compliant installation must have always been "potentially dangerous".

Indeed. However, as we always say (and most accept/acknowledge) some past (but no longer accepted) practices (particularly if one goes back far enough in time) have always been "dangerous" (and not necessarily only 'potentially' so - as we were recently reminded by a reference to 'knife switches'!) - but what was different in the past was EITHER that the danger was not recognised (seemingly unlikely in many cases) OR that the danger/risk was considered to be 'acceptable' back then (but not now).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Would you give a wired fuse in the neutral conductor or a water pipe used as the main earth a code bearing in mind that it was satisfactorily installed at the time?

BS7671 has never allowed that, before 1992 it was not BS7671.

 

[JohnW2]

BS7671 has never allowed that, before 1992 it was not BS7671.

I've never understood why you think that the date when the Wiring Regulations also became BS7671 (it now bears both names) makes any difference to anything. Your '1992' threshold is essentially just an arbitrary date. ...

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

the code C2 means potential dangerous and is not linked to BS7671.

You post this frequently and you are mistaken. The inspector will inspect and test against BS7671. Using the first non-compliance to illustrate.

4.19 RCD(s) provided for additional protection/requirements - includes RCBOs (411.3.3; 415.1) is in a potentially dangerous condition. Urgent remedial action is required - C2

In Appendix 6 (informative) but I find useful, the sample EICR has section 4 Consumer Unit(s) / Distribution Boards(s).
In the table the row for 4.19 the description is 'RCD(s) provided for additional protection/requirements - includes RCBOs (411.3.3; 415.1)'

If you look at the 2 regs
411.3.3 - RCD required for sockets up to 32A and mobile equipment used outdoors.
415.1 - RCD required for additional protection.

The inspector then uses his/her experience to decide whether lack of RCD warrants a C3 or C2. Personally I quote C2 when there is no RCD. FYI, it's irrelevant whether this was compliant when installed, or during an earlier inspection.

I know BS7671 is not a legal requirement, but it's surely safest to work to this standard (including the appendices)..

 

[ericmark]

@scousespark there were 4 codes, not counting the LIM, FI, etc, and code 4 was does not comply with current edition of BS7671 for a new installation. It was claimed this was confusing, as we were coding items which did not require upgrade, so code 4 was dropped, and we now have only 3 codes C1, C2, and C3, and although we are guided by BS 7671 it is no longer linked to BS 7671, that ended when code 4 was dropped.

Note "for a new installation" as every edition of BS 7671 gives the date when it comes into force for new designs, note not even the installation completion date, it is the design date, so if designed in 1992 then it follows BS7671:1992, simple.

However there are three points where this does not ring true.
1) Where some this has changed like bonding in bathrooms.
2) Where some other law or rule has required a change i.e. CENELEC harmonization documents.
3) Where manufacturers now recommends something which was not recommended before.

So showers, boilers, electric car chargers, and solar panels often require RCD protection that was not previously required. And in real terms there is bound to be some thing in every house which has changed so requires RCD protection.

However other than the three exceptions, if the installation has not degraded, and it complied with BS7671 at the time of the design then it still does comply with BS7671, until the design is altered. So can issue Code C3 but not Code C2.

 

[JohnW2]

@scousespark... so code 4 was dropped, and we now have only 3 codes C1, C2, and C3, and although we are guided by BS 7671 it is no longer linked to BS 7671, that ended when code 4 was dropped.

An EICR is still "linked to BS7671", in the sense that EICR inspections are undertaken with reference to the current edition of BS7671 and I doubt that anyone would consdier giving any code (C1, C2 or C3) to something which was compliant/conformant with the requirements of the current edition of BS7671, would they?

However other than the three exceptions, if the installation has not degraded, and it complied with BS7671 at the time of the design then it still does comply with BS7671, until the design is altered. So can issue Code C3 but not Code C2.

That's where I think that you, in some cases, 'out on a limb'. For a start, as I have said, there's nothing magic about the date on which The IEE/IET Wiring Regulations came to be 'subtitled' BS7671, with BSI as co-authors - so I think your argument would logically apply to any edition of the Wiring Regs, even if many decades old - which would, in some cases, be pretty ridiculous.

IF something is non-compliant with the current edition of BS7671, then the decision as to whether it should be given a C2 or C3 (or C1, or no code at all) is solely down to the inspector's judgement (in the case of a C2/C3 decision, as to whether it is considered that it presents enough of a 'potential danger' as to warrant 'urgent remedial action') - regardless of when it was installed and/or whether it was compliant with regs at that time.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

@scousespark there were 4 codes, not counting the LIM, FI, etc, and code 4 was does not comply with current edition of BS7671 for a new installation.

For a new installation the document produced is an Electrical Installation Certificate (or Minor Works EIC). The codes do not apply to the EIC/MWEIC.

It was claimed this was confusing, as we were coding items which did not require upgrade, so code 4 was dropped, and we now have only 3 codes C1, C2, and C3, and although we are guided by BS 7671 it is no longer linked to BS 7671, that ended when code 4 was dropped.

This makes no sense. The inspector folows the version of BS7671 in effect on the day of the inspection

Note "for a new installation" as every edition of BS 7671 gives the date when it comes into force for new designs, note not even the installation completion date, it is the design date, so if designed in 1992 then it follows BS7671:1992, simple.

The EICR applies the regs in effect on the day of the inspection

However there are three points where this does not ring true.
1) Where some this has changed like bonding in bathrooms.
2) Where some other law or rule has required a change i.e. CENELEC harmonization documents.
3) Where manufacturers now recommends something which was not recommended before.

So showers, boilers, electric car chargers, and solar panels often require RCD protection that was not previously required. And in real terms there is bound to be some thing in every house which has changed so requires RCD protection.

However other than the three exceptions, if the installation has not degraded, and it complied with BS7671 at the time of the design then it still does comply with BS7671, until the design is altered. So can issue Code C3 but not Code C2.[/QUOTE]

You just don't seem to get it. When carrying out a Periodic Inspection, the inspector uses BS7671 in effect on the day of the inspection.
The age of the installation is irrelevant.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do not see how the lack of what is classed additional protection renders something potentially dangerous, notwithstanding the fact that electricity itself is potentially dangerous.

 

[scousespark]

I do not see how the lack of what is classed additional protection renders something potentially dangerous, notwithstanding the fact that electricity itself is potentially dangerous.

To clarify, I was referring to 411.3.3 when I said I would code as C2.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok, but I don't really see the distinction nor why "improvement recommended" - C3 - is not adequate.