New Rules for Metal Boxes in rental properties

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, I realise that - but the fact is that it was largely because you quoted it that all this discussion arose about things which were 'compliant when installed' (but not compliant with current regs) possibly sometimes getting C2s .. and if they do get given C2s then they obviously are an issue/problem in terms of this new 'PRS' legislation.

I don't agree it was my quoting that piece of nonsense that caused the discussion.

So, again, where did that quote come from?

It was from Owain's lengthy post #11 and the included links[/QUOTE]

 

[JohnW2]

I don't agree it was my quoting that piece of nonsense that caused the discussion.

Well, all I can say is that it had a lot to do with my contributions to the discussion. However, at least I now understand that it was Owain you were quoting.

It was from Owain's lengthy post #11 and the included links

I think that the 'piece of nonsense' sentence/paragraph you quoted must be of Owain's creation. Everything in his post prior to that paragraph (i.e. up to and including the paragraph starting "The C3 classification code ..." is taken directly from the Guidance document to which he linked. However, in the Guidance document, the section in question ("What will the report show?") ends there, and does not include the paragraph/sentence which attracted your attention.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh. Ok.

 

[ericmark]

So back where you started, all 230 volt electrical equipment is potentially dangerous so no one can claim that anyone who gives a C2 is wrong.

We all seem to agree that a sensible approach is anything which has ever been allowed with BS 7671:1992 when it first came out should be allowed now. Any new rules set by government or IET/BSi always have a time when they come in, one for new, and two for existing things, be it a house or a car. And no where has anyone said by "Date" all accommodation old or new needs RCD protection.

However it is all well and good for me, I can decide if I want to spend the money on my wife and my safety, the house is mine. But a tenant clearly wants the safest house he can get for his family, but he can't force the landlord to upgrade.

So can we consider industrial premises for a while, if I go to work and I get a shock I have to go to hospital, and the HSE needs informing, they in my experience are reasonable, so if you show them a schedule where your upgrading the premises even if rather slowly, they will likely be satisfied your taking reasonable measures, if however it seems nothing has been done for last 10 years, they will likely have a talk with you can say how quickly they expect the premises to be upgraded.

But we look at pictures of domestic and it is clear nothing has been upgraded in the last 60 years, we still find lights with no earth, and my mothers house was still like that in 2017 when I got it rewired, the house was in a really poor state, but my dad said, you can do it when I am gone, I am not living in a building site, and that was what was done.

I wanted it rewired when my mother was in a care home, so either we could rent it, or safe for her return, she was in the care home in the end for 12 weeks, while the social services were making up their mind, it was finished we a week to spare.

So I know first hand you can't get a house rewired in 28 days, by time you have had the quotes, selected who will do it, waited for them to start, have decorators in, etc, you need at least double that time, and you also need to move the tenants out while the work is being done, with ample room for the electricians to work in, so may means some stuff being put in storage.

Yes fitting a consumer unit in 28 days, but even that depends on how many people are asking for the work to be done at that time. I tried fitting a pair of RCD's at dad's house they would not hold in, it really did NEED a rewire, and after my mother with alzheimer's put an extension lead in a bucket of water because also with eye sight problems she thought the red neon was the sockets being on fire, it was clear she NEEDED RCD protection.

I think the phrase is "Special Needs" but in a factory we can say this guy can't work safely here, sorry we can't employ him, not so easy in the home where a child or adult slowly shows they have "Special Needs" so when doing an EICR do you consider if potentially dangerous for an adult with no special needs, or potentially dangerous for anyone who may use the house? And over resent years there has been a push to keep old people in their own home, and not put them into an institution, so as a result the home needs to be made safer.

The big question is who should pay for the extra safety? Mother had an induction hob installed as if as an amputee she slipped and tried to save her self by grabbing the hob, the temperature would be limited so minimum harm, then it was ripped out and halogen hob fitted as induction hob could affect her pace maker, then the pace maker was changed, but by that time she was not cooking for herself. As she was in her own home and had the money the home was modified to suit her. Had she not owned her own home, then likely she would have been transferred to sheltered accommodation.

But in view of that, what is potentially dangerous? I depends on who is living in the home. So while looking after my mother if I considered no RCD protection was potentially dangerous would I be wrong? So how can anyone say an inspector is wrong if he fails a house with limited RCD protection? In simple terms we can't, we can say I would not have failed it on that, but we can't say the inspector is wrong.

 

[SUNRAY]

I don't agree it was my quoting that piece of nonsense that caused the discussion.
It was from Owain's lengthy post #11 and the included links

One of the problems

with the quote button

and editting, is the way

it can very easily be corrupted

either intentionally or

Accidently

Apologies to those I've misquoted, only done as a demonstration and no offence or allegation intended.

 

[OwainDIYer]

"There are some disputed areas, like the absence of RCDs on sockets, which an electrician may code as C3 or C2, depending on whether supplementary bonding is correct, an electric shower, or a socket likely to be used for outdoors equipment."

That looks like two different sentences have got mixed up.

Sorry; I know what I meant to say:

There are some disputed areas, like the absence of RCDs on circuits, which an electrician may code as C3 or C2, depending on whether supplementary bonding is correct (C3), an electric shower is present (C2), or a socket is likely to be used for outdoors equipment (C2).

 

[OwainDIYer]

However it is rapidly becoming a major problem, faced with a £3000 bill for a re-wire, and possibly also with rent arrears due to Covid19 there is a big reason to say forget it, I have had enough, I am selling up,

I am also seeing a lot of obviously student house-shares being disposed of by landlords; presumably a lot of students will be questioning whether studying away from home is worthwhile if lectures are on video anyway, or they'd rather pay for purpose-built student accom (PBSA) with en-suite bathrooms.

If you want to pick up a 4- or 5-bedroom house in a university town cheaply, now is probably the time (but to live in, not as an investment)

 

[EFLImpudence]

There are some disputed areas, like the absence of RCDs on circuits, which an electrician may code as C3 or C2, depending on whether supplementary bonding is correct (C3), an electric shower is present (C2), or a socket is likely to be used for outdoors equipment (C2).

Ok, sorry, I thought it was part of the copy and paste.

However, I still don't follow.

Had you written:

"There are some disputed areas, like the absence of RCDs on circuits, which an electrician may code as C3 or C2, depending on whether a socket is likely to be used for outdoors equipment (C2)."

That would be alright and might be the case - although whether C2 is correct could be argued against,
Supplementary bonding or a shower has nothing to do with sockets - whether RCD 'protected' or not.

or

"There are some disputed areas, like the absence of RCDs on circuits, which an electrician may code as C3 or C2, depending on whether supplementary bonding is correct (C3), an electric shower is present (C2)"

If you mean that RCDs are not required for bathroom circuits if supplementary bonding is correct, I suppose that is sort of true but it is the wrong way round. SB is (virtually always) not required if RCDs are present - and the two other conditions are met - so the EICR would note the lack of SB as C2; not the lack of RCDs as C3.

Plus, of course, showers are unlikely to have any exposed-conductive-parts.

 

[JohnW2]

... If you mean that RCDs are not required for bathroom circuits if supplementary bonding is correct, I suppose that is sort of true but it is the wrong way round. SB is (virtually always) not required if RCDs are present - and the two other conditions are met - so the EICR would note the lack of SB as C2; not the lack of RCDs as C3.

The lack of RCDs would surely also have to be coded, as at least C3, since all circuits 'serving' (or even just 'passing through' the zones of) a bathroom are now required to be RCD protected?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Until I think, may be wrong BS 7671:2018 it said manufacturers instruction not have to be followed, but before that BS 7671 said manufacturers instructions should be followed, so a shower without RCD protection is likely non compliant.

However we are not following BS 7671 to decide what is a C2, we are looking for potentially dangerous, and we still have not defined potentially dangerous.

 

[JohnW2]

Apologies to those I've misquoted, only done as a demonstration and no offence or allegation intended.

I don't know if you have misquoted anyone, but the main problem with what you've posted is that (although it is true in many cases), in the particular context we're talking about, as I suggested (and he has now confirmed) what got posted was the result of Owain's brain and/or typing fingers, not anything to do with 'quoting'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

So back where you started, all 230 volt electrical equipment is potentially dangerous so no one can claim that anyone who gives a C2 is wrong.

I don't think that even a Court would be that silly, given context, the full definition of C2 and just a tiny bit of common sense.

The full definition of C2 is "Potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required", which quite clearly means something like "Potentially more dangerous than it should be, hence urgent remedial action required". Even you surely do not believe that, 'by definition' all 230 volt electrical equipment "requires urgent remedial action", or that all motor vehicles, all tools and, indeed most household objects "require urgent remedial action" - just because they have the potential, in some situations, to be 'dangerous'?

We all seem to agree that a sensible approach is anything which has ever been allowed with BS 7671:1992 when it first came out should be allowed now.

You are putting words into the mouths of some of us. What you suggest is one possible approach, which probably would be reasonable but, as I keep saying without knowing much about the requirements of BS 7671:1992, I cannot say whether I would personally agree with that 'rule of thumb' in relation to everything.

You also seem to be overlooking my comment which you said was a 'good point'. If your view is that anything which would have been compliant with BS 7671:1992 'should be allowed now' if it was installed in the 1990s, then why should the same thing not also 'be allowed now' if it were installed in 2002, 2009 or even 2020? There is no way in which 'when it was installed' can make an iota of difference to how 'safe' or 'dangerous' (as perceived in 2020) a certain practice is (in 2020) - so where is the logic in using 'when it was installed' as a criterion for determining how 'acceptably safe' a practice is?

Accepting that views and attitudes (about 'acceptable risks') change over time, we now (in 2020) either do or do not believe that something that would have been compliant with BS 7671:1992 is considered to be 'acceptably safe' in 2020. If we do believe that, then we surely should accept it in 2020, regardless of when it was 'installed', and, equally 'surely', if we don't believe it, we should not accept it in 2020, even if it were installed in 1992.

Any new rules set by government or IET/BSi always have a time when they come in, one for new, and two for existing things, be it a house or a car.

There are obviously impracticalities in suddenly introducing a new regulation which requires that everything (existing or new) has to comply with it 'by tomorrow', hence it is normally as you say - but the 'period of grace' doesn't have to be all that long and, in extreme cases, might occasionally effectively become 'zero'.

Even when Airworthiness Directives are issued to airlines to require them to implement some urgent safety-related modifications, they are usually given a reasonable period of time to implement that in their existing fleet but, if the danger is deemed to be sufficiently great, the authorities can (and occasionally do) 'ground the whole fleet' until such a time as the safety measures/modifications are effected.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Yes I realise Potentially dangerous continues "urgent remedial action required" and I realise that all 230 volt would not be called potentially dangerous, however my point is it's hard to say an inspector has got it wrong.

As to before 1992 we had a lot of change, 1966 we all know earth to lights, but there was also earth to windows, or anything else made of metal, in the 70's it went mad, and I can't remember exactly what was and what was not allowed. And until the 16th Edition no one was tested on their knowledge of wiring regulations, the exam seemed to come in with BS7671.

Some where we got the ELCB-v, and to be frank I don't know how to test one, I have come across them, but replaced with a RCD, I know the RCD tester would not trip it, but when they were being used, I never had to test one.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes I realise Potentially dangerous continues "urgent remedial action required" and I realise that all 230 volt would not be called potentially dangerous, however my point is it's hard to say an inspector has got it wrong.

Assuming we're still talking about coding on EICRs, I'm not so sure of that. If an inspector ascribed a code meaning "Urgent remedial action required" to something which clearly did not require 'urgent remedial action', I don't think it would be "hard to say" that he had got it wrong!

However, you haven't commented on what was probably my greatest implied question - i.e. if a particular installation is considered to be 'acceptably safe' (in 2020) if it were installed in, say, 1994, how can exactly the same installation be regarded as not 'acceptably safe' (in 2020) if installed in 2002, 2009 or 2020 - or, conversely, if it is considered to not be 'acceptably safe' in 2020 if it were installed in, say, 2002, 2009 or 2020, how can exactly the same installation be regarded as being 'acceptably safe' (in 2020) if installed in, say, 1993?

... 1966 we all know earth to lights, but there was also earth to windows, or anything else made of metal, in the 70's it went mad, and I can't remember exactly what was and what was not allowed.

'twas before I knew anything much about the Wiring Regs, but my understanding is that a lot of the madness probably resulted from misinterpretation of regulations and perpetuation of myths (by word of mouth, "books" or teachers who should have known better) - was that not the case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I don't know if you have misquoted anyone, but the main problem with what you've posted is that (although it is true in many cases), in the particular context we're talking about, as I suggested (and he has now confirmed) what got posted was the result of Owain's brain and/or typing fingers, not anything to do with 'quoting'!

Kind Regards, John

Yes I have, the whole post was my fabrication just to highlight the situation.
I haven't actually gone back over the thread, but frequently edited quotes are posted which changes the context and sometimes the reply is made within the quotes [I've got it wrong myself so I understand how easily it happens].