EICR advice and costs... help.

[scousespark]

It's personal choice.

My main point was that we apply the regs in effect today (so missing RCD would result in a code. Eric seems to believe we use the regs from the date of original installation.

 

[JohnW2]

It's personal choice.

Indeed so. As I wrote...

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.

There obviously has to be some element of 'personal judgement', since there are inevitably always going to be 'grey areas' that no set of prescriptive rules could hope to cover comprehensively.

However, primarily because of the 'legal teeth' that EICRs have now acquired for rental properties (with potentially substantial financial implications for landlords) I think there is reason to question whether it is still appropriate (or even 'reasonable') for there to be so much judgement, and essentially no 'prescriptive rules', (hence scope for considerable inconsistency) still involved in the coding.

Kind Regards, John
Edit: typo corrected

 

[scousespark]

Given the regs point at the relevant regs, it would not take much to add the recommended code. However, that does seem to be a bit of dumbing down.
Another approach would be to set a minimum standard for inspectors. I’ve never understood why there are no restrictions on who can issue an EICR. This is a really complicated part of the job.

 

[JohnW2]

Given the regs point at the relevant regs, it would not take much to add the recommended code.

Exactly. As things are, the one and only 'recommendation' in BS7671 (and even that only in an 'informative' Appendix) is that the absence of RCD protection, when required by current regs, should be given "at least a C3" - which is hardly helpful!

However, that does seem to be a bit of dumbing down.

It is, but I think it is probably what is required/needed (to achieve consistency), and would be far from an unprecedented change. One doesn't have to go back all that many decades to the days when, say, airline pilots and doctors generally used their knowledge/ skill/ discretion to make individual judgments as regards how to deal with particular situations. Today, they are literally or (essentially) effectively constrained, in many situations, to make decisions according to rules/protocols/conventions/whatever.

In any event, particularly given that nothing in BS7671 is 'mandatory', BS7671 would/could not dictate 'mandatory rules' as regards EICR coding - but could, as you say, give 'recommendations' about coding - with which I imagine that the great majority of people would usually comply.

Another approach would be to set a minimum standard for inspectors. I’ve never understood why there are no restrictions on who can issue an EICR. This is a really complicated part of the job.

Indeed so. I'm not concerned so much about EICRs in general but, in relation to inspections in relation to the PRS legislation, I keep expressing my view that only those who are specifically licensed/registered (presumably requiring certain criteria relating to knowledge/skill/experience etc. to be satisfied) so to do should be allowed to undertaken them - so that, when necessary, that license/whatever could be 'revoked'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

The inspector folows the version of BS7671 in effect on the day of the inspection

Yes but the BS7671 actually says it is valid for installations designed after a set date, so following BS7671:2018 if the installation is designed in 2008 then following BS7671:2018 you go by BS7671:2008 if it says follow current editions as if new installation yes, but unless it says as if new installation then automatic BS7671 redirects you to version current when designed.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes but the BS7671 actually says it is valid for installations designed after a set date, so following BS7671:2018 if the installation is designed in 2008 then following BS7671:2018 you go by BS7671:2008 if it says follow current editions as if new installation yes....

All that would be true in relation to work undertaken in/around 2008 (or, indeed, any work undertaken between then and the end of 2018) - but if one is undertaking an EICR in 2021, then that inspection is undertaken with reference to the edition of BS7671 current in 2021 (i.e. BS7671:2018)

And, to be accurate, BS7671 doesn't quite say that "... it is valid for installations designed after a set date" but, rather that installations designed after a set date have to comply with the edition in question (until, of course, that edition is superseded) - which is slightly different.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

The Best practice guide 4 issue 5 has been taken by most as what we should do, I will admit there are some things I don't agree with,

to my mind this could be temporary, for example the builder drying out house after plastering as as not part of the fixed installation it does not come under the EICR. However this

is still in issue 5, there is no way in real terms you can still provide satisfactory service if you need RCD protection, OK I know my old house did have two RCD's above the Wylex fuse boxes, but that enclosure for the RCD's is not type tested so could not be added today.

It actually has a section headed "Non-compliances with the current edition of BS 7671 that do not give rise to danger and do not require reporting" as I have repeated many times, C2 and C3 do not say "Does not comply with current edition for a new design" that was 4, which has been removed.

As to holding C&G2391 before doing an EICR now no longer part of the EU I suppose that could be done, but before we left the free movement of labour stopped that, yes I can prove I am an electrician, I do have a degree, however in real terms that degree taught me nothing about hands on wiring a house. Over the years I have taken many exams, but it is not the exam that really matters, when I did my 2391 we had a board to test as part of the exam, I picked up that the loop impedance was too high for the length of cable involved, it seems the builder of the test rig had put resistors in the test rig to emulate reading one would get in a full house, and so had one put a load on the sockets of that test board the rig would have gone on fire, so I was clearly correct to say loop impedance was too high.

However the question then is what about all the students who did not notice the odd readings, they have just done an EICR and missed a fault which would cause a fire, but they still passed the C&G2391, pobodies nerfect, we all make errors, and in the run up to the new land lord laws it was said inspectors should have 10 years experience, that would mean anyone under the age of 28 could not do an EICR which is not really an option, so we have (“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards so even some one with a radio amateurs exam could claim to be competent, which seems a odd word to use, as competent person has been removed from the BS7671 definitions, it did mean they could look after the safety of others as well as themselves, it was a level above skilled.

A google search for "What qualification do you need to do an EICR?" comes up with "Only registered electricians should carry out an EICR." which we know is wrong, but as to if some one without C&G2391 should carry out an EICR not so sure.

 

[scousespark]

You are missing the point. A job starting today is designed to 2018:amendment 1. We are due an amendment next year. If the job is in progress, the contractor can continue as is or redesign to amendment 2. It doesn’t mean you can install to an old edition of the regs.

 

[JohnW2]

The Best practice guide 4 issue 5 has been taken by most as what we should do, I will admit there are some things I don't agree with ....

I can't speak for 'most', but what you are talking about is a document published by a charity which is related/affiliated to one of the trade organisations, all of the contents of which, as you say, not everyone would agree with.

It actually has a section headed "Non-compliances with the current edition of BS 7671 that do not give rise to danger and do not require reporting" ...

Which, in itself, indicates that they have not read and/or understood BS7671:2018 - since, strange though it may seem to most of us, the definitions in it now clearly indicate that a non-conformity with the requirements of BS7671:2018 which does not give rise to a danger is NOT a "non-compliance".

As to holding C&G2391 before doing an EICR now no longer part of the EU I suppose that could be done ...

Forgive my ignorance, but what on earth has EU membership (or the absence of it) got to do with C&G2391 - which I would have thought is about as British a thing as once could imagine?

A google search for "What qualification do you need to do an EICR?" comes up with "Only registered electricians should carry out an EICR." which we know is wrong ...

Quite so.

... but as to if some one without C&G2391 should carry out an EICR not so sure.

It is obviously desirable that anyone undertaking an EICR should be adequately competent (knowledgeable, skilful and experienced) so to do - but I think that is equally true of anyone undertaking any electrical work, not just EICRs. However, as we know, beyond that requirement of 'competence', there is no regulation of who may do electrical work or undertake EICRs.

Kind Regards, John

MOD: The OP's question appears to have been addressed. As is common in this forum this thread has descended into a debate amongst the regular posters. If you wish to carry on the debate, please start a new thread rather than conflating existing threads.