EICR - tester exceeding remit and the regs?

[JohnW2]

So the regulations don't require you to up-grade, however is seems some letting agents do, and there is nothing to say a letting agent should not demand a higher standard than the law requires.

Sure, but one of the (fairly crucial) things being debated is the question of what the new PRS legislation actually requires.

As written, it requires confirmation (documented in an EICR or somesuch) of 'compliance with' the current (18th ed.) version of BS7671. As we know, BS7671 itself effectively says that its requirements are 'not retrospective', by saying that things compliant with previous editions of the regs (but not current ones) "are not necessarily unsafe".

The question, therefore, is whether one can take that caveat into account (i.e. arguing that one is 'complying with' the current edition by relying on the fact that something was compliant with the edition in force when it was installed) or whether the new legislation literally means that the EICR/whatever must confirm that the entire installation (no matter when installed, under whatever contemporary regs) has to comply with requirements of the current, 18th, ed. - i.e. as if it were a new build or a total re-wire. We can all express personal views/opinions, but I think that only a Court could make a definitive decision about that - and, unlike all the other issues of interpretation of regs we talk about, I suspect that this question WILL get tested in the courts.

Kind Regards, John

 

[R Benny Waered]

AFAIK and electrician carrying out a EICR has no legal right to lock off or disconnect a circuit and deprive the owner of the benefit of his property. You could render yourself liable to legal action. All you can do is draw the owner's attention to the problem and recommend that the circuit be switched off until the fault has been remedied. I think we've had this discussion before.

That would be a very foolish landlord indeed that would do that.

These EICRs are a really good thing but to fail someone for something outside the regs is causing me a lot of problems and I'm having to create a huge paper trail to cover my back and if i get nowhere with the spark (28 days have long passed...) by playing nicely (as is likely) I will issue a formal letter rejecting his fails citing exact regs and potentially taking it further still for all this grief and cost.

Its a big deal for a landlord and I hate the position he's put me in - a C2 for gaps around 2 x 15mm pipes...

 

[JohnW2]

Its a big deal for a landlord and I hate the position he's put me in - a C2 for gaps around 2 x 15mm pipes...

You have my sympathies.

As I sort-of asked, by implication, previously, are there any electrical cables going through these gaps around pipes? Even if there were, I would be very doubtful that it was relevant, but if there aren't, what on earth have gaps around plumbing pipes got to do with an "Electrical Installation Condition Report"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[R Benny Waered]

No electrical cables mate. I wouldnt be comfortable with that anyway as pipes get hot and I'd long have had that sorted.

 

[JohnW2]

No electrical cables mate. I wouldnt be comfortable with that anyway as pipes get hot and I'd long have had that sorted.

That's what I presumed - so, as I said, it's quite ridiculous that such a thing should be mentioned, let alone given a 'code', on an EICR!

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Sorry if the excerpt I posted has muddied the waters. I have no idea where this business regarding CUs under stairs or on escape routes has come from.

The point I was trying to make is this well recognised document which the OP can readily access codes a plastic CU as C3 and not C2 as the electrician is trying to claim

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry if the excerpt I posted has muddied the waters. I have no idea where this business regarding CUs under stairs or on escape routes has come from. ...

Fair enough - but it's a little unfortunate that what you go on to describe as a "well recognised document" (about coding EICRs) should be saying ('advising') things that have no apparent basis in terms of BS7671, isn't it?

The point I was trying to make is this well recognised document which the OP can readily access codes a plastic CU as C3 and not C2 as the electrician is trying to claim

Thanks - and that surely is how it should be?

... and do I take it that you would agree that whoever did the EICR should not be coding "plumbing matters"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

... and do I take it that you would agree that whoever did the EICR should not be coding "plumbing matters"?

Yes absolutely. This is why I included a section which talks about coding to the current edition of BS 7671 only, and to ask the “electrician” which regulations he thinks it doesn’t comply with. Certainly would be interesting to hear his answers.

 

[ericmark]

If you had to ignore the fact it complied with a previous edition and treated it as newly designed, then may homes would need rewiring as they have the wrong cable colours.

One can't select which bits you like and which you don't, either you treat it as new design or as old design, and clearly it should be treated as an old design, not got BS7671:2018 only BS7671:2008 which says

BS 7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations was issued on 1st January 2008 and is intended to come into effect on 1st July 2008. Installations designed after 30th June 2008 are to comply with BS 7671:2008.

The reverse is clearly also true, if designed before 30th June 2008 then would be to BS 7671:2001 which was issued June 2001 which refers to Electricity at work regulations 1989 the first BS7671 was issued in 1992. There were regulations before that, but it was not a British standard.

The BS 7671 takes into account CENELEC harmonization documents with a whole list of dates, as to if that document is retrospective I don't know, however the point is we are not actually giving a C2 because it does not comply, we give a C2 because there is potential danger, and there may be the odd item which in 1992 did not cause potential danger but does today, it could be considered that with a TT installation in 1992 that a type AC RCD stopped potential danger but due to switch mode power supplies today we may require a type A RCD, but the cases seem rather few where you can show it was safe but not safe now.

At some point I suppose one needs to draw the line, but I would say any post war wiring is unlikely to cause a problem so 12th edition was 1950 so by that time we had shutters on the 13 amp sockets.

Where there may be a problem is insurance, or use of letting agent, but still can't see how any non electrical item can attract a C2 with an EICR, but although I suppose one could refuse to pay some one who clearly issues a jackanory report, once paid I would think it would be hard to get corrected.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes absolutely. This is why I included a section which talks about coding to the current edition of BS 7671 only, and to ask the “electrician” which regulations he thinks it doesn’t comply with. Certainly would be interesting to hear his answers.

Indeed. If the ceiling which has 'small gaps around pipes' is meant to be a fire barrier, then I presume that would be non-compliant with the relevant parts of the Building Regs - buts still absolutely nothing to do with an EICR!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If you had to ignore the fact it complied with a previous edition and treated it as newly designed, then may homes would need rewiring as they have the wrong cable colours.

Exactly, that's why it would e so daft for anyone to interporet the recent legislation as saying that an existing electrical installation had to comply with all of the requirements of BS7671:2018 'retrospectively'

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

An EICR is carried out to the most recent edition of BS 7671. It is entirely irrelevant to what ever previous standard the installation may or may not have complied with.

If you find a plastic consumer unit or red and black wiring then it doesn’t comply with the current edition of BS 7671 and needs to be noted on the EICR.

Just because something doesn’t comply, it does not mean it is unsafe or automatically needs rewiring, and you can still issue a satisfactory EICR.

If you take in to consideration previous standards, then this which I found in a school presumably would be ok as it complied when it was installed?

Lead sheathed cable protected by single pole fuses in both the line and neutral inside an enclosure with live parts which can be accessed without the use of a tool or key.

 

[JohnW2]

An EICR is carried out to the most recent edition of BS 7671. It is entirely irrelevant to what ever previous standard the installation may or may not have complied with. If you find a plastic consumer unit or red and black wiring then it doesn’t comply with the current edition of BS 7671 and needs to be noted on the EICR. Just because something doesn’t comply, it does not mean it is unsafe or automatically needs rewiring, and you can still issue a satisfactory EICR.

Indeed so.

I feel sure that we basically agree. I agree that what you say is totally correct for an EICR (which is not mentioned explicitly in the recent 'PRS' legislation). What I was saying would be (or is!) daft was for people to interpret that legislation as meaning that the installation had to be fully compliant with the current edition of BS7671 - in other words that, if an EICR was being used as 'the inspection', it should be regarded as a 'fail' if it contained any C3s, thereby 'forcing' the landlord' to actually bring everything up to the requirements of the current regs. That's what I was saying would be daft and, unless they are daft too, I feel sure not the intention of those who drafted the legislation (as, so often, seemingly not as well as they should have done!).

If you take in to consideration previous standards, then this which I found in a school presumably would be ok as it complied when it was installed?....

As above, I'm not suggesting that anything should be coded on an EICR any differently from what it literally deserves (as judged by the requirements of the current edition, as required), but that, if an EICR is used as a means of satisfying the legislation (which does not seem to give any explicit indication of what sort of inspection is required), it should not be felt that one or more C3s should be an indication that the installation does not satisfy the legislation.

As has been said and implied, those who choose to interpret the law in that way are presumably those who want to make money by changing plastic CUs to metal ones, or even re-wiring installations with 'cables having compliant insulation colours' etc.!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

An EICR is carried out to the most recent edition of BS 7671. It is entirely irrelevant to what ever previous standard the installation may or may not have complied with.

If you find a plastic consumer unit or red and black wiring then it doesn’t comply with the current edition of BS 7671 and needs to be noted on the EICR.

Just because something doesn’t comply, it does not mean it is unsafe or automatically needs rewiring, and you can still issue a satisfactory EICR.

If you take in to consideration previous standards, then this which I found in a school presumably would be ok as it complied when it was installed?

View attachment 202092

Lead sheathed cable protected by single pole fuses in both the line and neutral inside an enclosure with live parts which can be accessed without the use of a tool or key.

This has never complied with BS7671 which started in 1992. I looked at BS7671:2001 and it did not actually give a start date accept June 2001 and as said there was a list of CENELEC harmonization documents and reference to Electricity at work regulations 1989 so it does seem there is a limit to how far back one can go before other regulations also take over, this will also include the latest edition where it incorporates fire regulations and how they change what is required, so in general we need to remember BS7671 has altered through the years in order to line up with other regulations and laws.

However both BS7671:2008 and BS7671:2018 give dates as to when design has to follow that edition, I can't find the same in BS7671:2001 so it does seem as if BS7671:2001 is the earliest edition we can work to. I still have a copy and can't find the same phases used in BS7671:2008.

So two points because after 2001 the books have a set date after which a design must comply with the book also clearly you are complying with the versions after 2001 if the installation was designed designed before 30th June 2008 and it complies with BS7671:2001 then it still complies, and second is your looking for prospective danger to issue a C2 not non compliance with BS7671:2018, there was a code 4 which was for when the installation did not comply with current edition but did comply with previous edition, this code was removed, we no longer need to tell anyone it does not comply with current edition.

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.

This is a double edged, as the "necessarily" bit means it could or could not be unsafe.

110-04-01 The Regulations are non-statutory regulations. They may, however, be used in a court of law in evidence to claim compliance with a statutory requirement. The relevant statutory provisions are listed in Appendix 2 and include Acts of Parliament and Regulations made thereunder. In some cases Regulations may be accompanied by Codes of Practice approved under Section 16 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The legal status of these Codes is explained in Section 17 of the 1974 Act.
For a supply given in accordance with the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 as amended, it shall be deemed that the connection with earth of the neutral of the supply is permanent. Outside Great Britain, confirmation shall be sought from the supplier that the supply conforms to requirements corresponding to those of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 as amended, in this respect.

This also refers to other documents, which may mean we do have to comply with some of the changes.
The Part P regulations have referred to a version of BS7671 but also refer to equivalent as at the time we were members of the EU so you could comply if you wanted with German regulations, if you can read German that is, the same problem in Wales to be valid there must be an edition written in Welsh, I only read the odd Welsh word so no good to me, but unless published in Welsh not valid in Wales. They have enough problems translating road signs,

Welsh-speaking cyclists were told that they had problems with an 'inflamed bladder' by a temporary bilingual road sign between Cardiff and Penarth. Instead of the Welsh translation telling cyclists to dismount it actually read "bladder disease has returned". What do you think are the chances of translating the whole of BS7671 without errors?

 

[JohnW2]

This has never complied with BS7671 which started in 1992.

I think you are probably splitting hairs (aka being rather pedantic) about the name of the document. In fact, BS7671 is still 'subtitled' (including on the front cover) "IET Wiring Regulations Eighteenth Edition", and the Introduction contains ...

... All references in this text to the Wiring Regulations or the Regulation(s), where not otherwise specifically identified, shall be taken to refer to BS 7671:2018 Requirements for Electrical 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.

Note that it does not say "earlier editions of BS7671".

Kind Regards, John