rental with no rcd.

[JohnW2]

I agree... BUT... I'm not qualified, other than doing 16th a few years back, but the people I work for are happy for me to work for them under their control, even to the point they ask me to go out on jobs alone and even do inspestion and testing and sign and they countersign. Apparently all of that is acceptable under their obligations to NAPNIC.

I suppose that is (as things stand) all down to the discretion of those for whom you work (and NAPIT), and who 'supervise' you, and I have no reason to doubt that, whatever training/qualifications you do (or do not) have, you can do the work 'competently'.

However, as I implied, I'm not sure that this situation is 'right'. I would dare to suggest that, at least in some fields (e.g. 'domestic electrics') I am perfectly capable of undertaking electrical work satisfactorily, 'compliantly' and safety, but I do not really think it 'right' that I should be (as I am) allowed to offer such services to paying customers without being in some way registered/licensed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

There should be no code C1's as if that bad the inspector should make it safe before leaving.

As we've told you before, only if the owner of the installation gives consent to (and presumably pays for) the required work. A person undertaking an EICR has no authority to 'interfere with' a customer's installation without consent, no matter how dangerous the situation.

Hence, unresolved CIs on EICRs do exist, probably most commonly in situations in which the customer wants (maybe as a matter of principle) someone other than the 'EICR inspector' to do any necessary remedial work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

^^ re smoke and heat alarms IF they are mains powered they do fall under an EICR

... not if, as in the case we're discussing, such items are absent

 

[JohnD]

their previous leader did not seem to 'hide his suggestions', and that was surely a significant part of the reason he damaged his parry so much, wasn't it?

I recall a politician who suggested that the standards on our privatised railways were unacceptably poor, and suffered a typhoon of attacks by Conservative-supporting media (including a video produced and falsified by the railway company) claiming he was making it up, and was some kind of madman attacking private profit.

In fact, of course, he was right, and the majority of the population agree that railways should be taken into public ownership and run for the benefit of the nation.

(This nation, I mean, not the foreign ones that own vast swathes of our public services).

 

[Murdochcat]

Interesting comments, and my thoughts are:

No RCD - border line - but I do tell landlords that as part of their duty of care then they should add RCD protection. Especially if someone is going to be standing on "true earth", which in this case the kitchen is accountable.

16mm tails OK

6mm main earth ok if TNS

no bonding - needs fixing, unless both are plastic or bonded when they enter the block

Bathroom fan - outside scope of BS7671

Kitchen fan - outside scope of BS7671

No smokes - outside scope of BS7671 - but do comment on this when doing EICr's. Needs to be installed.

So for me the flat is "unsatisfactory" needs rectifying before gets put on rent or whatever.

You need to brush up on the PRS legislation.

Rentals HAVE to have a satisfactory before a new agreement and then every 5 years or less if the inspector recommends

 

[JohnW2]

You need to brush up on the PRS legislation. Rentals HAVE to have a satisfactory before a new agreement and then every 5 years or less if the inspector recommends

What 'brushing up' do you think he needs, given that his conclusion was:

So for me the flat is "unsatisfactory" needs rectifying before gets put on rent or whatever.

 

[JohnW2]

I recall a politician who suggested that the standards on our privatised railways were unacceptably poor, and suffered a typhoon of attacks by Conservative-supporting media (including a video produced and falsified by the railway company) claiming he was making it up, and was some kind of madman attacking private profit.

History is history, and my interest is in the future.

In fact, of course, he was right, and the majority of the population agree that railways should be taken into public ownership and run for the benefit of the nation.

Well, if it's the case that majority of the (adult) population' have that view, then they could get their way by voting for a party which promised to do that, but I'm not sure that any party is going to make such a promise, are they?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Jurassicspark]

You need to brush up on the PRS legislation.

Rentals HAVE to have a satisfactory before a new agreement and then every 5 years or less if the inspector recommends

I knew that.

 

[ericmark]

^^ re smoke and heat alarms IF they are mains powered they do fall under an EICR

I use to test smoke detectors but results went on an independent form, and I was trained how to use the smoke generator.

It suited my firm to have electricians test them, but as long as wiring is safe, they are nothing to do with an EICR.

 

[JohnW2]

I use to test smoke detectors but results went on an independent form, and I was trained how to use the smoke generator. ... It suited my firm to have electricians test them, but as long as wiring is safe, they are nothing to do with an EICR.

ASs you say, the functioning of smoke alarms is nothing to do with an EICR, although any LV wiring of/to them obviously is.

Kid Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

History is history, and my interest is in the future.

Well, if it's the case that majority of the (adult) population' have that view, then they could get their way by voting for a party which promised to do that, but I'm not sure that any party is going to make such a promise, are they?

Kind Regards, John

Why would anybody give the Tory press the chance to launch a typhoon of attacks?

No wonder non-Tory politicians are careful what they say.

 

[Murdochcat]

ASs you say, the functioning of smoke alarms is nothing to do with an EICR, although any LV wiring off/to them obviously is.

Kid Regards, John

Disagree.

If mains smoke / heat alarms are fitted and are out of date then it’s a C2 for the accessories.

 

[ericmark]

It is not an insulation it is an appliance, same as a cooker or extractor fan, working or not working in or out of date nothing to do with EICR.

The problem is if you list a smoke alarm then the client may think you have tested them. That would be like testing a RCD by pressing test button instead of using a proper RCD tester, and could mislead the owner into thinking they have been properly tested.

Although I tested smoke alarms, it was not done at same time as the EICR, for one we needed to warn people they were being tested.

 

[JohnW2]

Disagree. ... If mains smoke / heat alarms are fitted and are out of date then it’s a C2 for the accessories.

That's an interesting view, given that being 'out-of-date' only affects the functionality of the device (which is not an electrical 'accessory' in the normal sense), not is electrical safety. If one regards smoke alarm functionality as being within the siope of an EICR (which I personally don't believe it is) then those undertaking EICRs would have to 'properly test' them (with smoke, not the 'test button') - which is something which seems to be rarely, if ever, done in the context of an EICR.

I wonder if anyone else agrees with you?

Furthermore, most people seem to think that if one 'codes' something on an EICR one should (or, at least, should be able to) cite the regulation in BS7671 which is being violated - what reg would you cite in relation to an 'out-of-fate' smoke alarm, I wonder?

 

[JohnW2]

Why would anybody give the Tory press the chance to launch a typhoon of attacks?

If a party is frightened of promising a policy that might be attacked by media which represent the views of a very substantial proportion of the population, then maybe they should re-consider the wisdom of such a promise? In any event, if, as you suggest, a 'majority of the population' would favour the policy you mentioned, the party would surely want to publicise that policy as a promise in order to attract the votes of that 'majority', shouldn't they?

Being frightened to voice one's policies is surely a very suspect situation?

However, if you wish to pursue a discussion about politics, I would ask you to start a new thread - and, so long as it remains in this forum, I will contribute as I see appropriate.

Kind Regards, John