EICR complies with previous edition.

[ban-all-sheds]

3) Double socket in rear bed fed in old brittle rubber cable - unsafe so did not reconnect
.
.

5) Ground bathroom - high level fused spur - no allowed but not serving any purpose so did not reconnect

I wonder where he disconnected those accessories - at the accessory or at the source?

6) Ground bathroom fan cabling - using earth as live with no colour coding and therefore no usable earth in cable - C3

Can't believe he made that a C3. I assume it's T&E used where 3C&E was needed for L/SL/N. The major problem there isn't the lack of sleeving or the lack of a cpc - it's a live conductor which is not insulated and sheathed.

6) Ground bathroom fan cabling - using earth as live with no colour coding and therefore no usable earth in cable - C3

Now it would seem the Electrical Safety Council have told it's members this is permissible with Class II fans, I don't agree

Neither does the joint IET/BSI Technical Committee JPEL/64, but then NICEIC have long thought that they are empowered to write their own version of the Wiring Regulations.

 

[ericmark]

Neither does the joint IET/BSI Technical Committee JPEL/64, but then NICEIC have long thought that they are empowered to write their own version of the Wiring Regulations.

Until 1992 when BSi put their stamp on the IEE as was then IET as it is now I suppose anyone could write there own set of regulations.

I have a CITB guide to 15th edition and I know the union also did their guide it did not have to be the IET's guide.

But we it would seem only have one exam and so one qualification to show we can read the book. C&G 2382 is all about reading the IET publications no other.

I wish the C&G 2382 asked questions which showed you could interpret the regulations not just read similar to the way C&G 2391 did.

The idea of the codes was to make it easier for a layman to work out how bad the installation is and highlight those items which need immediate work and those which can be done within the next 6 months or so.

When the codes were reduced from 4 to 3 again it was to make it easier for the layman.

Filling a report with codes which all refer to the same fault does not to my mind make it easier for the layman.

Where there is no RCD nearly every entry will have code 3 or with bathroom code 2 and to my mind the method used of placing these codes against every entry is very misleading to the layman and does the reverse to what was intended.

To write a report starting with:-
1) Consumer unit code 2 and 3 RCD protection missing.
and then continue.
2) Sockets etc etc etc also see 1)
Rather than repeat the missing RCD again and again would be a far more useful format.

Yes I know you could wire a house with Ali-tube cable and put all the RCD's at the sockets plus a RCD FCU for bathroom lights but it would be very unusual to wire that way.

It is the same with earth connections. Where an earth rod is missing to then code every socket and lamp because the ELI is not good enough just does not help.

Maybe when asked to do an EICR on a house with no RCD and/or no earth connection the report should simply say. "No RCD protection fitted and/or no earth protection fitted inspection aborted until faults corrected"?

 

[JohnW2]

It is the same with earth connections. Where an earth rod is missing to then code every socket and lamp because the ELI is not good enough just does not help. ... Maybe when asked to do an EICR on a house with no RCD and/or no earth connection the report should simply say. "No RCD protection fitted and/or no earth protection fitted inspection aborted until faults corrected"?

In the case of an absent earth some variant of that is surely the only sensible option? An electrician who goes around religiously measuring EFLI on all the final circuits in the known absence of any earth would surely just be either plain daft or some sort of unthinking 'robot'?!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

It is the same with earth connections. Where an earth rod is missing to then code every socket and lamp because the ELI is not good enough just does not help. ... Maybe when asked to do an EICR on a house with no RCD and/or no earth connection the report should simply say. "No RCD protection fitted and/or no earth protection fitted inspection aborted until faults corrected"?

In the case of an absent earth some variant of that is surely the only sensible option? An electrician who goes around religiously measuring EFLI on all the final circuits in the known absence of any earth would surely just be either plain daft or some sort of unthinking 'robot'?!

Kind Regards, John

I totally agree but it's similar with the RCD filling a report with references to missing RCD means a building manager will likely miss among it all some faults which need immediate action.

Clearly some where at some time an electrician must have come across an installation so bad he could not allow re-energising. In all my time as an electrician I have not found a single time where the electrician had to arrange alternative accommodation for occupants of a house.

 

[JohnW2]

Clearly some where at some time an electrician must have come across an installation so bad he could not allow re-energising.

That might be common sense, but I can't really see how an electrician could have the authority to "not allow" re-energisation. In really dangerous situations, I suppose (s)he could contact the DNO, who would have the authority to disconnect the supply of they felt that was necessary/appropriate.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Spark123]

The DNO probably won't be that bothered about anything after the meter.
You can turn off and tell the customer you have turned it off for a reason, attach a notice and then it is up to them if they want to switch it back on again.

 

[JohnW2]

The DNO probably won't be that bothered about anything after the meter.

One might have thought that (unless, I suppose, the installation in some way jeopardised their network, or perhpas just their fuse), but I thought westie had told us that DNOs can (and sometimes do) disconnect supplies from 'dangerous' installations.

You can turn off and tell the customer you have turned it off for a reason, attach a notice and then it is up to them if they want to switch it back on again.

Indeed - and that's what I would expect to happen in practice. However, it clearly falls well short of the "not allowing" that eric suggested.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Spark123]

Yep, but at least our backsides are covered!!
I don't think there is much more we can do, I know the gas blokeys can RIDDOR stuff but I don't think we have the same powers in domestic environments.

 

[Spark123]

but I thought westie had told us that DNOs can (and sometimes do) disconnect supplies from 'dangerous' installations.

I don't know if they would do it at an electricians request or whether it has to be an authority such as the police of fire brigade.

 

[JohnW2]

Yep, but at least our backsides are covered!!

Indeed so. I suppose that (even if they chose to ignore you), if you could demonstrate that you had also contacted the DNO, that might protect your backside even more?

I don't think there is much more we can do, I know the gas blokeys can RIDDOR stuff but I don't think we have the same powers in domestic environments.

Quite - I'm sure that you don't have any such powers. Maybe at least one of the reasons is that, unlike the gas guys, there is no compulsory registration for people who do domestic electrical work - so it would be very difficult to define who had such powers, if they did exist (which they don't).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

but I thought westie had told us that DNOs can (and sometimes do) disconnect supplies from 'dangerous' installations.

I don't know if they would do it at an electricians request or whether it has to be an authority such as the police of fire brigade.

I don't know for sure, either - hopefully we may get some authoritative input!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have always been told in any health and safety lecture are electricians we can over turn the decision of the managing director and not only can but must isolate a supply where imminent danger exists.

However with domestic we and this includes the gas man are no allowed to make a dwelling uninhabitable without arranging for alternative accommodation.

Nothing says who must pay for it but it would seem we must find it before we can isolate a supply. It is the same for the gas man. So in winter we can switch off a heater in one room but not all rooms. Same with lights. There is a list of what is required to make a premises inhabitable.

In real terms I suppose we would have to ring the council and say this house is not fit to live in you need to re-house the people in it.

But it's not up to the owner to sort it out but us even if at the end of the day the owner pays.

I think the idea is a land lord can't just tell tenants get out it's not safe.

However when listening to the radio it would seem the rules of the 1980's where it was near impossible to get rid of a tenant have been reversed so now it is very easy to kick a tenant out.

As a result today the rules may not require as much as they did in the past and it is hard to find where a rule has been removed.

But I would think one would need a reference number from social services to show you had done all you could to find alternative accommodation. If there is a disability, or children or elderly involved I am sure social services will find accommodation. However where able bodied adults are living in the premises then likely they would be told find a hotel.

So I would think "I have rung travel lodge and they have spare rooms." would likely be enough. But one would need the call logging so one could prove you had found alternative accommodation.

But it would seem if in December on a Sunday you find a house has a dangerous installation you have to find that alternative accommodation you can't just say sorry I'm not turning this back on it's dangerous.

I also think the rule is to stop the DNO from turning off supply because of non payment of the bill.

 

[Spark123]

Yep, but at least our backsides are covered!!

Indeed so. I suppose that (even if they chose to ignore you), if you could demonstrate that you had also contacted the DNO, that might protect your backside even more?

Quite possibly, but the second you start costing someone more money and causing them to be held to ransom your name will be dragged through the dirt, it may not be your fault but it won't stop them badmouthing you to others ultimately even costing you other jobs.

 

[JohnW2]

I have always been told in any health and safety lecture are electricians we can over turn the decision of the managing director and not only can but must isolate a supply where imminent danger exists.

I would suspect that it depends upon what you mean by 'isolate'. If you were to do, without the owner's permission (or, worse, despite the owner's refusal to give permission), something which effectively made it impossible for the owner of the installation to re-energise it, I suspect that (no matter how well-intentioned) you may well have committed a criminal offence.

As I recently wrote, I suspect that one of the problems with giving electricians such powers is that, in the absence of any compulsory registration, there is no legal definition of an electrician. As a consequence of that, anyone could call themselves an electrician and then go around disabling electrical installations!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

However when listening to the radio it would seem the rules of the 1980's where it was near impossible to get rid of a tenant have been reversed so now it is very easy to kick a tenant out.

Have you got that the wrong way round?

Evicting tenants, legally, may be easy but it is lengthy.