EICR Failed, does the house need a rewire or issues can be rectified

[ericmark]

The simple answer is it does not need a full rewire, the faults can be corrected. But the BS 7671 has a clear date after which the design must comply, note the design date not installation date, so in the main, if OK when designed, it is still OK today.

I say in the main, are there are exceptions, we are seeing one now, where some RCD are not suitable for reverse current flow, also where some thing has been clarified, like what is meant where we say the installation should be split into circuits. But unless it can cause danger, then not coded with C1 or C2, so RCD's tripping due to back ground leakage is not going to get a code C1 or C2.

It is also made clear it refers to electrical danger, lack of smoke alarms may be a danger, but not electrical danger. However HSE rules are where a danger is observed we must report it in writing, so including it in notes would I feel satisfy that requirement.

However I have only seen one court case report, and that was because the inspector had failed to report some of the faults, so I can see where the watch my back has resulted in an OTT report, but if reports even in notes, then it has been reported.

If I put in a report where I have worked wrong size fuse fitted, or label missing, unless followed by corrected, I would get a kick up the backside. Pointing out sample sockets had not earth sleeve OK as to remove every socket and fit earth sleeve would be rather time consuming. And if missed on sample likely missed on others.

 

[Jurassicspark]

So - things/parts magically became "potentially dangerous" when RCDs were introduced when they weren't before and that all electricity is potentially dangerous is of course neither here nor there.

I won't say dangerous but I'll say a hazard.

Lets charge the customer for altering what we said he had to have done last time.

I usually C2 socket circuits on the ground floor near doors and possibly windows. You ought to believe that, don't you?

 

[ericmark]

Lets charge the customer for altering what we said he had to have done last time.

It does seem this happens, but one also needs to show what you did was appropriate at the time it was done. I looked at a neighbours EV charge point install, done around 2004, when the Renault Kango electric first came out, no loss of PEN protection, and since an EV is really no different to a caravan, should that have been done? But was just after Part P came in, so he has a lovely certificate saying it complies.

Same with my house and supply to oil boiler, done 2023 so have a compliance certificate, and no RCD protection, and cables are buried in the wall.

So if some one comes back to the electrician who installed it and says hey you should not have done this, I want it correcting FOC, what is the result? If one says this ELCB-v has been outlawed so now you have to change it, and can show the client when and why it was outlawed then fair enough, but I would even with an ELCB-v have a hard time showing it was permitted at time and now outlawed, out of interest I will now look.

I see they were discontinued early 80's, and came in during the 60's, I see reference to IEE forbidding the continued use, but a hunt through BS 7671:2008 can't find a single reference to them. I wonder if they were really banned as such, there are other rules like sockets near to the sink, I was told as an apprentice 1.5 meters from sink, but can find nothing in the books to say this was ever correct, told metal window frames needed earthing, again can't find any reference to this. I throw most of the old books away, now wish I had kept them.

 

[JohnW2]

.... But the BS 7671 has a clear date after which the design must comply, note the design date not installation date, so in the main, if OK when designed, it is still OK today.

I thunk you are somewhat misrepresenting what (all editions of) BS7671 actually say.

... it does not say that things are "still OK today" if they were "OK" (compliant with the then-current edition of BS7671) when designed - what it does say is that such things are "not necessarily unsafe for continued use" - which I would suggest is very different from "OK".

 

[EFLImpudence]

I won't say dangerous but I'll say a hazard.

But C2 means "potentially dangerous".

I usually C2 socket circuits on the ground floor near doors and possibly windows.

So - what made them become "potentially dangerous" when they were not when installed?

Nothing has changed as far as the sockets in question are concerned.

You ought to believe that, don't you?

I believe that you (and others) do it but I don't understand the reasoning behind it.

Surely in such situations all that can be stated is "improvement recommended"; i.e. C3.

 

[JohnW2]

So - what made them become "potentially dangerous" when they were not when installed? ... Nothing has changed as far as the sockets in question are concerned.

As so often discussed, other than in very exceptional circumstances nothing can become 'more dangerous' than it was at any point in the past - BUT what does change, all the time, and in all works of life, is 'our' view of what degree of risk ('dangerousness') is regarded as 'acceptable'.

There are any number of aspects of electrical installations in our youth which would be considered 'frightening and unacceptable' today - but that despite the fact that they would be no more dangerous today than they were 50+ years ago.

Whether one regards the ever-tighter requirements in terms of risk reduction as being desirable or feel that 'Nanny' sometimes goes to far, is very much a matter of personal opinion, and hence will vary considerably.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, but we are talking about terms used in electrical regulations - or possibly even only in "Best Practice Guides" - which virtually force customers to pay for supposed improvements which I know for certain some of us frequently query whether the overall expense of such things was justified or even worth it.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but we are talking about terms used in electrical regulations - or possibly even only in "Best Practice Guides" - which virtually force customers to pay for supposed improvements which I know for certain some of us frequently query whether the overall expense of such things was justified or even worth it.

As you must be aware, I totally agree with all that - which is why I believe that more thought should go into deciding what 'safety improvements' really are 'necessary'.

It's getting 'worse', since we are now seeing movement in the direction that will eventually probably effectively 'force' customers to pay for 'improvements' which essentially protect only 'equipment', not even the 'life or limb' of human beings (or other animals!).

 

[Murdochcat]

BEAMA have a lot to answer for ........ because they are ONLY motivated by profits for themselves and have undue influence on JPEL/62

Then there is NAPIT and its ridiculous "Code Breakers" book which is seriously dangerous in certain hands as its widely used to justify telling people that they need unnecessary work done.

Thankfully I can tell Napit to go and do one in 26 days

 

[Risteard]

I thunk you are somewhat misrepresenting what (all editions of) BS7671 actually say.

... it does not say that things are "still OK today" if they were "OK" (compliant with the then-current edition of BS7671) when designed - what it does say is that such things are "not necessarily unsafe for continued use" - which I would suggest is very different from "OK".

I agree. The implication is that it might or might not be acceptable/safe. Engineering judgement would need to be excercised to ascertain this. It is not a blanket statement that it will be acceptable/safe.

 

[ericmark]

When I fitted RCD's to my last house it was in 1991 approx to protect my son who had just passed his RAE at 14 and was likely to play with mains.

I could have used plug in units, or RCD sockets, and if I had then I could have selected 10 mA units. So the question is does the RCD need to be part of the installation, specially with a rented house where the occupant should not be drilling walls etc?

I remember doing PAT testing and the problem with extension leads, the question arises with the protection device open the circuit within the prescribed time, the answer was dependent on the lead length as to if the fuse in the plug would rupture within the allowed time, so before all sockets were RCD protected we would with longer leads have RCD plugs, if we look at garden equipment the leads are normally long, so the only way to comply with tripping times was to use a RCD plug.

So three stages, at one point we started to get RCD plugs on lawn mowers, then as RCD's were fitted in the home, we went to RCD adaptors often sold with the new lawn mower, and as more an more homes got RCD protection we started to need to ask for RCD adaptors they were not pushed on us when we bought the lawn mower.

We also got selected RCD sockets where lawn mowers regularly plugged in.

So for the inspector, if he sees a RCD adaptor plugged into the socket likely used by the lawn mower, should he accept it that out door items are not potentially dangerous?

As to cables in the wall, with a owner occupied house he may drill the walls, with rented the occupier should not be drilling walls, so why is RCD protection required?

OK yes I know the Emma Shaw case, and it was not the occupier who damaged the cable, and a RCD would have saved her life, but it was blamed on poor inspection and testing, not lack of RCD.

I personally fitted RCD protection on all circuits around 1991, when my son at 14 passed his RAE, and this may have saved my life when I hack-sawed through a cable not in the safe zones, likely I would have been more careful if I did not know cables should have not been there? I was putting in a water supply for the new fridge, back then they were plumbed in. However it was the lighting supply down stairs, so many houses which had RCD protection did not have it for downstairs lights.

So tomorrow I go to work volunteering at local railway, and not a single RCD in sight, all extension leads, on a wet floor, the safety officer was an electrician until he resigned, easy enough to swap a MCB for a RCBO but not done. Not even a plug in unit, they are sold this one advertised at £48.23, any wonder why not used?

 

[securespark]

VOELCBs were deleted from the regs in 1985, the year that working to the 15th Ed. became compulsory.