Switch next to sink

[JohnW2]

I think if you knew what your were doing and can demonstrate it's wrong then yes.

That would not be easy. One of the problems is that there is nowhere any 'official' guidance (I'm not counting the mutterings of trade organisations) as to how one should code things - particularly as regards to C3 vs C2. It is therefore down to the discretion/judgement of the person undertaking an EICR to decide whether or not some non-compliance/conformity is sufficiently 'potential dangerous' to require 'urgent remedial action'.

Even if it were it another electrician expressing a different personal opinion/judgment as to whether something should be a C2 or C3 it would e difficult enough to 'prove' whose opinion was 'correct', but if the challenge were coming from a non-electrician (i.e. almost all landlords, even if they realised that there was an issue), then I imagine that it would be even more of an uphill struggle.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

That would not be easy.

I agree, but in my experience LA's are not as dogmatic and reluctant to discussion as the prevailing thoughts in this thread seem to think.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not saying it would be easy and I realise that the landlord might not know, but for example -

A landlord has on the report a C2 for no Main Bonding on the water supply. He engages a different electrician to 'remedy' the situation. That electrician discovers that the water supply is plastic and informs the landlord.
Similar with C2 for no Supplementary Bonding in bathroom; second electrician discovers all pipework under the floorboards to the bathroom is plastic.

What is to be done?
Would a simple statement from the second electrician be enough to satisfy everyone, including the tenants? Claim cost from first electrician?

So, would a statement that there is no regulation regarding socket distance from a sink be sufficient?
It is not really a matter of people's opinion.




Of course I have until now managed to stop myself suggesting that perhaps the sink is in the wrong place.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree, but in my experience LA's are not as dogmatic and reluctant to discussion as the prevailing thoughts in this thread seem to think.

Yes, I agree that LAs (well, individual buildings inspectors) can be much easier to deal with than one might think from things one often reads. However, one of the problems is in finding a 'mechanism' by which to involve them since, if I udnerstand the legislation correctly, it's only after they have issued a remedial notice (assuming they know that one is required), hence by the time that one has technically already 'broken the law', that there appears to be provision for one to 'make representations' to them.

I think I would probably say that one shouldn't have to 'break the law' in order to question the basis of which one has allegedly broken it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[morse]

Just my opinion (which is worthless) but if you employed a legally competent person to undertake a EICR and you became aware (eg by visiting a relevant forum) that the results were questionable than it would be reasonable to dispute it. The sensible course of action would be to get a second opinion. If that opinion casts serious doubt over the original EICR and can back it up with reference to the regulations than you'd go with that and possibly seek redress from the originator (either through their 'scheme' or through small claims for breach of contract). If it comes down to a difference of opinion between a C2 and C3 than you'd err on the side of caution.

 

[JohnW2]

Just my opinion (which is worthless) but if you employed a legally competent person to undertake a EICR and you became aware (eg by visiting a relevant forum) that the results were questionable than it would be reasonable to dispute it. The sensible course of action would be to get a second opinion. If that opinion casts serious doubt over the original EICR and can back it up with reference to the regulations than you'd go with that and possibly seek redress from the originator (either through their 'scheme' or through small claims for breach of contract). If it comes down to a difference of opinion between a C2 and C3 than you'd err on the side of caution.

I agree in concept with what you are saying (and certainly that getting 'a second opinion' has probably got to be the first step, regardless of what strategy one is contemplating), albeit I'm not quite sure what would constitute a "legally competent" person.

However, one of the crunches is your last statement. With just one specific exception (the absence of RCDs) there is no official guidance (in BS7671, which 'invents' the concept of an EICR) as to what should get a C2 and what should get a C3 - so, as I've said, it comes down to an individual electrician's opinion/judgement as to whether or not something is sufficiently "potentially dangerous" for "urgent remedial action" to be required. If two electricians (particularly if fonder are considered to be 'competent') have differing opinions then, as you imply, many people (and quite probably even Courts, if it ever got there) would probably be inclined to 'err on the side of caution' (i.e. go with the C2).

There is also the 'mechanistic' issue I mentioned. If one considers the simple case in which the tenancy has already commenced (hence a copy of the initial EICR should have been given to the tenant), the '28-day clock' has already started, and there appears to be no provision in the legislation for any sort of appeal/representation until that period has expired, rendering the landlord technically in breach, such that the LA issues a 'remedial notice' (whereupon 'representations' may be made), even if one is taking action (of one sort or another) to try to address what one believes to be an 'incorrect' initial EICR. As I said, it seems wrong that one has to 'break the law' in order to have an opportunity to argue about the situation.

Before someone else mentions it, there is, indeed, some (I would say 'unofficial') 'guidance' about coding of EICRs provided by some of the trade organisations ('scheme operators'). However, that is unfortunately part of the problem. For example, as has been discussed here, at least one of these organisations is advising that plastic CUs under stairs or in 'escape routes' (whatever they may be in domestic premises) should be given C2s. It seems unfortunate (unreasonable?) that those who follow that advice can cause landlords to suffer appreciable cost in having a CU replaced when many (most?) would probably regard that as unnecessary (i.e. would give it a C3, if anything). However, again, even a Court might 'err on the side of caution' and uphold the C2 in that situation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If it comes down to a difference of opinion between a C2 and C3 than you'd err on the side of caution.

C3 means improvement recommended but still allowed.
C2 means potentially dangerous and not allowed.

While some of the discrepancies do indeed come down to a difference of opinion in that two people's views are different (even according to official guidance), if that decision - as for an EICR - is dependent on the present regulations then one of the views is not actually an opinion but simply a mistaken interpretation or a fanciful invention.

Were one to have a time machine and view future regulations then one could argue that the future regulations would mean that something compliant with the present regulations can be potentially dangerous. This clearly would be wrong.

 

[morse]

I agree in concept with what you are saying (and certainly that getting 'a second opinion' has probably got to be the first step, regardless of what strategy one is contemplating), albeit I'm not quite sure what would constitute a "legally competent" person.

Sorry, me neither. It's a phrase you see bandied around. I guess I mean someone that the courts would agree would be deemed competent by a reasonable person.

However, one of the crunches is your last statement. With just one specific exception (the absence of RCDs) there is no official guidance (in BS7671, which 'invents' the concept of an EICR) as to what should get a C2 and what should get a C3 - so, as I've said, it comes down to an individual electrician's opinion/judgement as to whether or not something is sufficiently "potentially dangerous" for "urgent remedial action" to be required. If two electricians (particularly if fonder are considered to be 'competent') have differing opinions then, as you imply, many people (and quite probably even Courts, if it ever got there) would probably be inclined to 'err on the side of caution' (i.e. go with the C2).

Nothing's perfect and you'd expect professional's opinions to differ in many respects regarding the regulations as they do in other fields. If it came to court I'd image it would end up as a battle of expert opinion. I'd also guess that the court would lend weight to any (scheme?) guidance if it existed.

There is also the 'mechanistic' issue I mentioned. If one considers the simple case in which the tenancy has already commenced (hence a copy of the initial EICR should have been given to the tenant), the '28-day clock' has already started, and there appears to be no provision in the legislation for any sort of appeal/representation until that period has expired, rendering the landlord technically in breach, such that the LA issues a 'remedial notice' (whereupon 'representations' may be made), even if one is taking action (of one sort or another) to try to address what one believes to be an 'incorrect' initial EICR. As I said, it seems wrong that one has to 'break the law' in order to have an opportunity to argue about the situation.

I'm not familiar with the legislation but you'd hope that the LA appreciates that rouge/incompetent tradespeople exist. I think it comes back to reasonable behaviour.

Before someone else mentions it, there is, indeed, some (I would say 'unofficial') 'guidance' about coding of EICRs provided by some of the trade organisations ('scheme operators'). However, that is unfortunately part of the problem. For example, as has been discussed here, at least one of these organisations is advising that plastic CUs under stairs or in 'escape routes' (whatever they may be in domestic premises) should be given C2s. It seems unfortunate (unreasonable?) that those who follow that advice can cause landlords to suffer appreciable cost in having a CU replaced when many (most?) would probably regard that as unnecessary (i.e. would give it a C3, if anything). However, again, even a Court might 'err on the side of caution' and uphold the C2 in that situation.

Nothing's perfect Specialist courts exist for this type of thing but again, you'd need deep pockets.

C3 means improvement recommended but still allowed.
C2 means potentially dangerous and not allowed.

While some of the discrepancies do indeed come down to a difference of opinion in that two people's views are different (even according to official guidance), if that decision - as for an EICR - is dependent on the present regulations then one of the views is not actually an opinion but simply a mistaken interpretation or a fanciful invention.

Agreed. If something is demonstrably incorrect than including it on an "offical" form doesn't make it correct.

 

[JohnW2]

... While some of the discrepancies do indeed come down to a difference of opinion in that two people's views are different (even according to official guidance), if that decision - as for an EICR - is dependent on the present regulations then one of the views is not actually an opinion but simply a mistaken interpretation or a fanciful invention.

I can't really agree with that.

If one is prepared to stretch one's thinking to the incredibly improbable, virtually anything to do with 230V electricity could be said to be 'potentially dangerous', and virtually every one of the regulations at least intends to minimise such 'potential dangers'. Hence, when we see that phrase used in the definition of a C2, the only sensible course would seem to interpret that as meaning "significantly potentially dangerous" - more specifically "a 'potential danger' significant enough to require 'urgent remedial action' ".

If one accepts that, then there is tremendous scope for individual opinion/judgement/discretion, in all but the most extreme of situations. As I've said, with the one single exception of the absence of RCDs, BS7671 is totally silent (implicitly as well as explicitly/literally) on the question of whether or not non-compliance/conformity with any particular regulation is such as to require 'urgent remedial action'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry, me neither. It's a phrase you see bandied around. I guess I mean someone that the courts would agree would be deemed competent by a reasonable person.

As you say, it is definitely bandied about, but there is no clear meaning. The current version of BS7671 abandoned the term "competent person", and instead replaced it with ....

Skilled person (electrically).
Person who possesses, as appropriate to the nature of the electrical work to be undertaken, adequate education, training and practical skills, and who is able to perceive risks and avoid hazards which electricity can create.

.. which is so vague as to be of minimal use. The problem is that it's an almost totally unregulated trade. People can do 'courses' lasting just a small number of days and end up with a bit of paper which appears to show that they are a 'qualified electrician'.

Nothing's perfect and you'd expect professional's opinions to differ in many respects regarding the regulations as they do in other fields. If it came to court I'd image it would end up as a battle of expert opinion.

Indeed - and, as I think we've both said, if two groups of seemingly 'competent' experts disagreed as to whether something was 'potentially dangerous' enough to warrant 'urgent remedial action', one would imagine that a court would be inclined to 'err on the side of safety' - i.e. the result that 'we' would not want in some of the sort of situations we have been discussing.

I'd also guess that the court would lend weight to any (scheme?) guidance if it existed.

So, I fear, would I - but, as I said, that would, at least in some cases, magnify the problem, since some of the 'guidance' being provided by the scheme operators seems to be on the side of the "cowboys' charter" which the legislation seem to currently represent.

I'm not familiar with the legislation but you'd hope that the LA appreciates that rouge/incompetent tradespeople exist. I think it comes back to reasonable behaviour.

I would hope that, too - but, as I've said, no matter how reasonable an LA may be, the legislation does not appear to have provision for any sort of 'appeal' unless/until one has already 'broken the law' (by not complying with it, as written) - which, as I've said, seems wrong to me.

Agreed. If something is demonstrably incorrect than including it on an "offical" form doesn't make it correct.

Things which are simply 'wrong' (i.e. things mentioned/coded on an EICR which have nothing to do with the electrical installation) are not really a problem. However, I think EFLI's suggestion was that the regulations, per se, are enough to indicate what should be given a C2, so that the coding on an EICR should never be 'a matter of opinion' - but, as I've said, I disagree with that, since I see tremendous scope for (differing!) professional opinions/judgement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If one is prepared to stretch one's thinking to the incredibly improbable, virtually anything to do with 230V electricity could be said to be 'potentially dangerous', and virtually every one of the regulations at least intends to minimise such 'potential dangers'. Hence, when we see that phrase used in the definition of a C2, the only sensible course would seem to interpret that as meaning "significantly potentially dangerous" - more specifically "a 'potential danger' significant enough to require 'urgent remedial action' ".

In that case you cannot argue about NAPIT's view (according only to them) that a plastic CU is C2 when under an escape route despite the regulations saying nothing about it and the situation being normal for ever.

If one accepts that, then there is tremendous scope for individual opinion/judgement/discretion, in all but the most extreme of situations.

Surely in all but the simplest of situations.

As I've said, with the one single exception of the absence of RCDs, BS7671 is totally silent (implicitly as well as explicitly/literally) on the question of whether or not non-compliance/conformity with any particular regulation is such as to require 'urgent remedial action'.

I don't understand that.

 

[JohnW2]

In that case you cannot argue about NAPIT's view (according only to them) that a plastic CU is C2 when under an escape route despite the regulations saying nothing about it and the situation being normal for ever.

I don't argue with NAPIT's opinion, any more than I would argue with anyone else's (or any other organisation's) opinion, but they are just opinions.

The problem with NAPIT etc. is that their opinions are much more likely to influence those who do EICRs (and, as morse said, Courts) than are the opinions of individual 'Joe electricians'.

If one accepts that, then there is tremendous scope for individual opinion/judgement/discretion, in all but the most extreme of situations.

Surely in all but the simplest of situations.

I think we're saying the same thing, aren't we, since the most extreme situations are the simplest ones? I don't think that anyone would disagree that overtly exposed live parts deserved a C1 or that the absence of a label shouldn't get a C2 or C1 - those are both extreme and simple situations.

I don't understand that.

You presumably agree that not all non-compliances/non-conformities with BS76671 deserve C1 codes on an EICR, and probably also agree that some non-compliances/non-conformities probably don't deserve any code at all.

In just one case in Appendix 6 of BS7671, there is an indication of what coding is 'required' - when it says that the absence of RCD protection should be given 'at least a C3'. To the best of my knowledge, in no other place in BS7671 (or its Appendices) does it give any indication of what code should, or should not, be given for non-compliance/non-conformity with any particular regulation - hence leaving that decision about coding entirely to the opinion/judgment/discretion of the person undertaking the EICR.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't argue with NAPIT's opinion, any more than I would argue with anyone else's (or any other organisation's) opinion, but they are just opinions.

Well, yes, by definition an opinion, but just made up for no reason with no justification.
If I thought 2+2 was 5, that might be my opinion but no one should take any notice.

In just one case in Appendix 6 of BS7671, there is an indication of what coding is 'required' - when it says that the absence of RCD protection should be given 'at least a C3'. To the best of my knowledge, in no other place in BS7671 (or its Appendices) does it give any indication of what code should, or should not, be given for non-compliance/non-conformity with any particular regulation - hence leaving that decision about coding entirely to the opinion/judgment/discretion of the person undertaking the EICR.

Ok. Needless to say, I disagree with the 'at least' part.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, yes, by definition an opinion, but just made up for no reason with no justification.

I think that is wrong, and unnecessarily harsh.

If one starts from the fact that (rightly or wrongly) BS7671 regards (or has been told to regard!) plastic CUs as a potential fire hazard, then it's not unreasonable to feel that the extent to which it poses a 'potential danger' will vary according to the location of the CU and, for people who think that way, I'm sure that there will be varying opinions as to what locations cross a line to the point that they pose a sufficient 'potential danger' to require 'urgent remedial action'. You and I may disagree with NAPIT's opinion about that, but I don't think it is fair to say that their opinion is based on 'no reason' and has 'no justification'. Opinions are opinions.

Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, when we first discussed the issue here, at least a couple of people (was Simon one of them?) actually sympathised (agreed) with NAPIT's view about plastic CUs under stairs.

If I thought 2+2 was 5, that might be my opinion but no one should take any notice.

That's totally different, because it is a matter of fact (which you would have got wrong), not of opinion. If people undertaking EICRs stick to things that can be supported by correctly-cited regulations, then such 'errors of fact' shouldn't occur in the coding, but if they did something like coding a switch "because it was only 750mm from a bath", then I suppose that would be an example of a 'factual error'.

Ok. Needless to say, I disagree with the 'at least' part.

... and, equally needless to say, so do I - but, again, those are our personal opinions. Again, I think one has to respect everyone's right to have opinions about such things, and I imagine that you would probably be able to find at least some people who sincerely believed that the absence of RCD protection in 2020 represented a sufficient 'potential danger' to warrant urgent remedial action.

In terms of the issues we've been discussing, the ideal would be for the coding of EICRs (at least, those for PRS properties!) to have absolutely no reliance on individual judgements/opinions. It's unrealistic to expect that to be completely possible, but the system could at least minimise the extent to which such individual judgement was required. Plastic CUs are a reasonable example - there could, for example, be a 'rule' that all plastic CUs should get C3s, or that all should get C2s, or that (like NAPIT) they should get C2s when in certain (well-defined) locations, but otherwise C3 etc. etc.

That's largely similar to MOTs. There will inevitably be some 'judgement' (e.g. the amount of play in a steering joint, or whether the amount of surface corrosion on a brake pipe was acceptable) but one would not want them to 'judge' the adequacy of tyre treads by 'eyeballing' them, or assessing the braking system by driving around and 'seeing how the brakes felt'. With MOTs, as much as possible is objective, rather than subjective, and I think that would also be desirable for EICRs (particularly 'PRS' ones).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's totally different, because it is a matter of fact (which you would have got wrong), not of opinion.

Ok. Then so is what we are discussing.

It is not an opinion that BS7671 says nothing about CUs under the stairs nor escape routes in dwellings.

If people undertaking EICRs stick to things that can be supported by correctly-cited regulations, then such 'errors of fact' shouldn't occur in the coding, but if they did something like coding a switch "because it was only 750mm from a bath", then I suppose that would be an example of a 'factual error'.

Exactly.

That's largely similar to MOTs. There will inevitably be some 'judgement' (e.g. the amount of play in a steering joint, or whether the amount of surface corrosion on a brake pipe was acceptable) but one would not want them to 'judge' the adequacy of tyre treads by 'eyeballing' them, or assessing the braking system by driving around and 'seeing how the brakes felt'. With MOTs, as much as possible is objective, rather than subjective, and I think that would also be desirable for EICRs (particularly 'PRS' ones).

I don't think those are comparable examples.