EICR Failed - Is the electrician trying to make more work ?

[JohnW2]

We hear the phrase let the courts decide, and that is how British law works ...

In the context in question, I think we only really 'hear that' from you . The rest of us understand that such questions are virtually never going to get anywhere near a court.

However, even if a case did 'get to court', I don't think that would help. A court is, itself, not competent to rule on technical questions. If the laws and regulations did not give an explicit answer to a disputed technical question, the court would have no option other than to look to expert witnesses - and, just as with the discussions we see here, they would end up with two groups of expert witnesses presenting opposing opinions.

For example, if the issue being tested was whether or not a plastic CU under a staircase should be given a C2, I would expect that both the 'prosecution' and the 'defence' would be able to produce equally apparently 'authoritative' expert witnesses to support their side of the argument - so, short of 'using a pin', I'm not sure how the court would "decide".

As I said, I think the only answer would be to (as far as is possible) produce 'explicit rules', leaving as few grey areas as possible which required case-by-case individual judgement/discretion.

Some one in government needs to state what is permitted with rental property and not try doing it on the cheap by linking to BS 7671.

We certainly do now have a dichotomised situation. For owner-occupied properties, the situation remains as it always was, that a property owner is free to act upon or ignore the findings of an EICR, whereas for rental properties an EICR now has legal teeth, with potential substantial financial implications for landlords.

However, I don't think it is sensible or practical to expect the government to produce its own set of 'regulations' specifically for rental properties - since the implication of what we're discussing is that any such set of regulations would presumably have to be even more detailed than BS7671!

However, given that it appears to be BS7671 that had invented 'the codes', I would think that it could go at least some way to offering at least guidance as to what non-conformities should be given what codes. As things stand, as far as I am aware there is literally only one such bit of guidance - namely that the absence of required RCDs should be given "at least a c3"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

As unusual John you are correct. or spot on. In the past it did not matter C2 or C3 you had high lighted a problem. And we have debated many times which should be C2 and which should be C3, so it seems reading the new law, the county council has the last word, waiting to see how they deal with it.

 

[JohnW2]

As unusual John you are correct. or spot on.

I'm glad you agree - but that sentence could perhaps benefit from some editing

Kind Regards, John

 

[He who knows]

Many thanks for your help! The EICR has not been issued

Don't pay him then - he hasn't done the job he was contracted to do.

 

[He who knows]

.

 

[He who knows]

.

 

[He who knows]

CircPro don't seem to 'do' what we would decribe as 'UK English' - since they say that they have a "license" from MK and that they are an "authorized licensee"!

Easy way to remember.

N comes before V.

C comes before S.

LicenCe is the Noun, LicenSe is the Verb.

 

[He who knows]

However, I don't think it is sensible or practical to expect the government to produce its own set of 'regulations' specifically for rental properties - since the implication of what we're discussing is that any such set of regulations would presumably have to be even more detailed than BS7671!

Is it sensible to have a law which requires compliance with a standard which says that non-compliances do not necessarily have to be rectified?

However, given that it appears to be BS7671 that had invented 'the codes', I would think that it could go at least some way to offering at least guidance as to what non-conformities should be given what codes. As things stand, as far as I am aware there is literally only one such bit of guidance - namely that the absence of required RCDs should be given "at least a c3"!

Gotta love guidance. Where would we be without it?

NAPIT guidance for no RCD protection for cables in walls is C2.

Electrical Safety First, of which NAPIT are part, say it's a C3.

And meanwhile, ESF say that RCD sockets can be installed as a way to provide RCD protection for outdoor sockets but documented as a departure as they don't comply with the requirements for additional RCD protection, and I wonder how a subsequent inspecting electrician would code that obvious non-compliance?

 

[JohnW2]

Easy way to remember. N comes before V. C comes before S. LicenCe is the Noun, LicenSe is the Verb.

I seem to be able to remember that (in relation to 'UK English') with out any such aide memoire

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Easier way is Advice and Advise which are pronounced differently.

 

[JohnW2]

Is it sensible to have a law which requires compliance with a standard which says that non-compliances do not necessarily have to be rectified?

As you have actually written it, that might have been a more valid question (be it real or rhetorical) prior to 18th ed of BS 7671 - since the 18th defines a 'non-compliance' as as no-conformity "which may give rise to danger" (and which it is therefore probably implying 'needs to be rectified'??).

Gotta love guidance. Where would we be without it?

A little less confused, perhaps?!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Easier way is Advice and Advise which are pronounced differently.

Quite so - that's exactly how I remember it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[He who knows]

As you have actually written it, that might have been a more valid question (be it real or rhetorical) prior to 18th ed of BS 7671 - since the 18th defines a 'non-compliance' as as no-conformity "which may give rise to danger" (and which it is therefore probably implying 'needs to be rectified'??)

I'd forgotten that.

Which makes what it says in the Introduction weird, because using that definition it effectively becomes

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 have non-conformances which may give rise to danger. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

 

[Risteard]

Easy way to remember.

N comes before V.

C comes before S.

LicenCe is the Noun, LicenSe is the Verb.

The way I was taught was that ice is a noun.

 

[ericmark]

Its i before e except after c so eci not ice, their got it.