EICR complies with previous edition.

[ericmark]

The Regulations apply to the design. erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations. Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

So if an installation has not be modified or altered since the previous edition and it complied fully with previous edition does that mean it still complies or not?

Code 4 was so easy. The loss of code 4 means we have to decide if it should be not coded or if it should get a code 3.

To put a note "This installation was installed to an old edition of BS 7671 and any alterations may require an upgrade first to current regulations." is a fair comment.

But filling a report with code 3's which are in essence all down to the same change in regulations is hiding real faults.

When for example inspecting a bathroom the bonding required depends on the presence of RCD protection. How can one report the same fault twice? If one says bonding is missing and RCD protection is missing then one is reporting the same fault twice. To say protection is missing is rather too vague. If one says either bonding or RCD protection is required that is also incorrect as with a new bit of installation it needs RCD protection and once you work on it that bit is new.

I keep seeing EICR's with reams of code 3's each one referring to the same thing no RCD protection.

To in a report write "Note 1 :- This installation does not have the RCD protection required in new installations since 2008 which mean many items fail to reach the standards set in BS7671:2008 this does not make the installation dangerous but will mean any additions or alterations will required the addition of RCD protection." then with every item which fails because of no RCD enter see note 1 is fair enough.

But to fill the report with Code 3's which all refer to the same regulation change just hides real faults.

What does the team think?

 

[welchyboy]

The new code of C3 is essentially the same as the old 4 i dont understand your point

Your are assessing the installation against the current regulations and although not fully compliant, would be satisfactory in outcome, if designed properly to the 16th

How does it hide faults?

Am i misunderstanding your point?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Your are assessing the installation against the current regulations and although not fully compliant, would be satisfactory in outcome, if designed properly to the 16th

If it was designed properly to the 1st would you still say it was satisfactory?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So if an installation has not be modified or altered since the previous edition and it complied fully with previous edition does that mean it still complies or not?

Complies with what?

The current version, against which you are assessing its condition?

Maybe, maybe not.

When for example inspecting a bathroom the bonding required depends on the presence of RCD protection. How can one report the same fault twice? If one says bonding is missing and RCD protection is missing then one is reporting the same fault twice.

No, that's two faults.

No RCD.

No bonding.

It may be that one remedial action resolves both faults, but that doesn't mean that there aren't two faults.

 

[welchyboy]

Your are assessing the installation against the current regulations and although not fully compliant, would be satisfactory in outcome, if designed properly to the 16th

If it was designed properly to the 1st would you still say it was satisfactory?

Errrmm obviously not, but it would from the 16th like I said, not sure what your getting at tbh

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So we have established that you do not necessarily believe that just because something complied with the then-current regulations when originally installed it is satisfactory when assessed against the current regulations.

Your are assessing the installation against the current regulations and although not fully compliant, would be satisfactory in outcome, if designed properly to the 16th

15th? 14th? 13th?

Where's your cut off point?

 

[JohnW2]

So we have established that you do not necessarily believe that just because something complied with the then-current regulations when originally installed it is satisfactory when assessed against the current regulations.

Whenever this discussion comes up, there seems to be an assumption on the part of many people that ("because the regs are not retrospective") anything that was compliant with the regs in force at the time of installation is OK. However, what BS7671 actually says is this (my emphasis):

...Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

I take those emboldened words to imply that, despite compliance with an earlier edition (at the time of installation) it might now be regarded as "unsafe or requiring upgrading" - i.e. the situation is not automatically 'OK' - but, rather, a judgement is required.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

there seems to be an assumption on the part of many people that ("because the regs are not retrospective") anything that was compliant with the regs in force at the time of installation is OK.

Which is clearly nonsense.

the situation is not automatically 'OK' - but, rather, a judgement is required.

Indeed. But the status of the situation wrt previous versions of the regulations is completely irrelevant.

 

[JohnW2]

there seems to be an assumption on the part of many people that ("because the regs are not retrospective") anything that was compliant with the regs in force at the time of installation is OK.

Which is clearly nonsense.

Indeed - and, as I said, despite what a lot of people seem to say/think, that is not was BS7671 says.

the situation is not automatically 'OK' - but, rather, a judgement is required.

Indeed. But the status of the situation wrt previous versions of the regulations is completely irrelevant.

I agree in concept, but probably wouldn't go quite as far as saying "completely irrelevant". Provided one is sensible in one's risk assessment/judgement, something that was compliant with a recent edition of the regs is more likely to be acceptable (even if not ideal) than something that was not even compliant with regs at the time it was installed. In other words, it's one of the factors that would be taken into account in making one's judgement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[welchyboy]

So we have established that you do not necessarily believe that just because something complied with the then-current regulations when originally installed it is satisfactory when assessed against the current regulations.

Your are assessing the installation against the current regulations and although not fully compliant, would be satisfactory in outcome, if designed properly to the 16th

15th? 14th? 13th?

Where's your cut off point?

What do you not understand mate?, an installation installed correctly to the 16th edition would satisfactorily pass an eicr based on the current 17th all it would have is a few c3 s due to rcd protection

Who is talking about any other editions?????????? Agggghhhhhh!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What do you not understand mate?,

The concept that someone assessing an installation under Edition N of the Wiring Regulations should consider what Edition N-1 said.

I see no references on an EICR to historical editions, nor to specific historical regulations.

an installation installed correctly to the 16th edition would satisfactorily pass an eicr based on the current 17th all it would have is a few c3 s due to rcd protection

And why would it have those C3s? Because of what the current edition says, or because of what the 16th said when it was installed?

Who is talking about any other editions?????????? Agggghhhhhh!

You are, but you seem unable to grasp that.

As soon as you say that compliance with any previous edition of the regulations, even the most recent previous one, can have any bearing on how the installation is assessed today then you must either:

1) Extend that principle to include all previous editions

or

2) Formally state a cut-off point (which could be "the immediately preceding edition" if you wish).

Nothing else is logical.


So with your regime, any electrician qualifying today would have to obtain a copy of, and learn, and for consistency prove knowledge of, the 16th Edition.


I wonder when you'll hear the sound of a penny dropping.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree in concept, but probably wouldn't go quite as far as saying "completely irrelevant". Provided one is sensible in one's risk assessment/judgement, something that was compliant with a recent edition of the regs is more likely to be acceptable (even if not ideal) than something that was not even compliant with regs at the time it was installed. In other words, it's one of the factors that would be taken into account in making one's judgement.

Disagree entirely.

If an electrician is expected to use the compliance of something with a recent edition as a factor, then he must be expected to have, and to know, and to have proved his knowledge of, that previous version.

Nothing else is logical.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree in concept, but probably wouldn't go quite as far as saying "completely irrelevant". Provided one is sensible in one's risk assessment/judgement, something that was compliant with a recent edition of the regs is more likely to be acceptable (even if not ideal) than something that was not even compliant with regs at the time it was installed. In other words, it's one of the factors that would be taken into account in making one's judgement.

Disagree entirely. If an electrician is expected to use the compliance of something with a recent edition as a factor, then he must be expected to have, and to know, and to have proved his knowledge of, that previous version. Nothing else is logical.

Well, yes, it obviously goes without saying that one cannot use compliance with a previous edition of the regs as one of the factors influencing one's judgement about the installation unless one knows that it was compliant with the previous edition! However, that knowledge may be very specific and circumscribed, not necessarily requiring comprehensive knowledge of all of that previous edition. Furthermore, where there have been substantial changes as compared with the previous edition, they are summarised in the 'changes' section at the start of the current edition.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

What do you not understand mate?, an installation installed correctly to the 16th edition would satisfactorily pass an eicr based on the current 17th all it would have is a few c3 s due to rcd protection

If that is the case with a particular installation, what is the issue, and why is any reference to previous editions of the regs relevant? In that situation, the EICR can simply be undertaken on the basis of current regs, indicating that all is satisfactory (per 17th edition), other than "a few C3s" because of issues of RCD protection (as required by 17th ed.).

Where do any considerations of previous editions of the regs have to come into that process?

Kind Regarsd, John

 

[ericmark]

Your are assessing the installation against the current regulations and although not fully compliant, would be satisfactory in outcome, if designed properly to the 16th

If it was designed properly to the 1st would you still say it was satisfactory?

Errrmm obviously not, but it would from the 16th like I said, not sure what your getting at tbh

The 1st Edition of BS7671 is the 16th Edition IEE before that point it was not a British Standard. (BS7671:1992)

The word previous is also used that is also a problem because previous to 17th was the 16th but previous to BS7671:2008 was BS7671:2001 which was 10 years after the 16th was published, and only in 1992 did it become a British Standard.

I do see the point of limiting how far back the previous is different to a previous. Since the recommended time between EICR is a maximum of 10 years having 10 years as the maximum time one would look back seems to make some sense.

But I have looked as some reports which are crammed full of Code 3 but as you read through the report it all refers to a single item. “522.6 Impact” it would seem is the main one followed by “411.3.3 Additional protection” both which revolve around the “415.1.1” regulation.

Amongst these code 3’s for RCD you get the others for example where the sheath of an insulated and sheathed non-armoured cable not taken inside the enclosure of an accessory or IP rating not good enough, Absence of circuit protective conductors in circuits having only Class II (or all-insulated) luminaires and switches, Absence of ‘Safety Electrical Connection — Do Not Remove’ notice etc.

However unless the writer of the report details all the other problems then any one correcting can simply fit a new consumer unit and leave all the other problems un-rectified.

In theory anyone doing work like fitting a new consumer unit should also do an EICR before re-commissioning, but where they have a report done just weeks before listing faults it is understandable they don't go too far in testing.

Where the same person does inspection and repair not a problem but where some one else does the repair it is very easy to right on limitations on the installation certificate as being items directly effected by the change and not do a full EICR once fitted.

I viewed an EICR which listed every circuit and on each one either class 3 or class 2 where it supplied a bathroom, it lacks any detailed information as to what has been found or where. In an ideal report one would have what has been found and which regulation it fell foul of but in many of the reports I have read one stands there scratching ones head trying to work out what the tester had seen.

On another forum I was reading a report the poor guy who had got this report had not a clue what it all was about.