Switch next to sink

[JohnW2]

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.

Very true. All BS7671 says is that CUs must be manufactured from 'non-combustible' materials (or enclosed ...). However, just as with virtually all its regulations, it gives no instructions, nor even guidance, as to whether non-conformity with that reg should be coded as C1, C2 or C3 (or not coded at all), hence inevitably meaning that that decision has to be made on the basis of the judgement (what we're calling 'opinion') of the person undertaking the EICR.

With many of the regs, including this one, the person may well say that the appropriate coding 'depends' on various aspects of the particular circumstances - and, in this case, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to have the view that it depends upon the location of the CU.

I don't think those are comparable examples.

The actually inspections obviously aren't comparable - but the concept of it being desirable to minimise subjective factors (and use objective criteria wherever possible) exists in relation to almost every inspection and/or testing situation, not just EICRs and MOTs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Very true. All BS7671 says is that CUs must be manufactured from 'non-combustible' materials (or enclosed ...). However, just as with virtually all its regulations, it gives no instructions, nor even guidance, as to whether non-conformity with that reg should be coded as C1, C2 or C3 (or not coded at all), hence inevitably meaning that that decision has to be made on the basis of the judgement (what we're calling 'opinion') of the person undertaking the EICR.

Well, it sort of does in that conforming to previous editions is considered not necessarily unsafe, and it is often quoted that the regulations are not retrospective.

With many of the regs, including this one, the person may well say that the appropriate coding 'depends' on various aspects of the particular circumstances - and, in this case, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to have the view that it depends upon the location of the CU.

I disagree.
How does a regulation which states new CUs must be steel have any bearing on the location, especially when that location has been standard practice 'for ever'?
Plus, giving something a C2 in effect makes the remedy mandatory (in law now with the PRS). This has never been so and cannot be in this case.
You might as well say that all CUs which do not conform to new regulations regarding access to them must be replaced.

The actually inspections obviously aren't comparable - but the concept of it being desirable to minimise subjective factors (and use objective criteria wherever possible) exists in relation to almost every inspection and/or testing situation, not just EICRs and MOTs.

Yet if something complies with the rules, then obviously failing it for contravening non-existent rules one just happens to think a good idea is exceeding the remit.
Like failing all cars that do not have copper brake pipes because steel ones go rusty.

 

[mrrusty]

Dear Electrician. Thankyou for your report. I believe you may have coded some of the conditions incorrectly, and as you are no doubt aware this report will now prevent me successfully renting this property and will impose financial losses on my business while I remedy this situation. Because I am not sure you have coded correctly, I am going to seek a second opinion from a national body. In the meantime please provide me with details of your Professional Indemnity Insurance, which I will of course be claiming on for financial loss, should it turn out that the professional advice you have given is incorrect.

Luv and kisses. The landlord.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sure that you must understand the points I am making, so it's not quite clear as to why you are continuing to argue.

Well, it sort of does in that conforming to previous editions is considered not necessarily unsafe, and it is often quoted that the regulations are not retrospective.

Indeed, but "not necessary unsafe" clearly also means "may be unsafe" - so, in the absence of any specific guidance (in BS7671) it is surely inevitable that whether or not a particular non-conformity (with BS7671) is 'unsafe enough' to warrant a C2 has to be totally dependent upon the judgement of the electrician.

If you disagree that it's totally down to the judgement of the person completing the EICR as to how a particular non-conformity should be coded, then what (in the absence of any guidance in BS7671) do you suggest can/should be the basis of that decision?

I disagree. How does a regulation which states new CUs must be steel have any bearing on the location, especially when that location has been standard practice 'for ever'?

That's how the regs work - because the regs are "not retrospective", new regs can only relate to newly-installed things. However, most (all?) people undertaking EICRs assess an installation in relation to the current edition of the regs (i.e. assess things as if they were all 'newly installed'). Were that not the case, then BS7671 could simply 'instruct' that anything that was in conformity with the prevailing edition of regs when installed should not be given any code at all (unless they re-instated C4, simply indicating the lack conformity with current regs, but without any 'recommendation').

If you are simply saying that it is your opinion that anything which 'conformed when installed' should never be given more than a C3 then, as you know, I (and many others, but not everyone) agree. The great majority of the subjectivity (hence potential inconsistency and 'injustices') involved in EICR coding could be eliminated if BS7671 simply had an 'instruction' to that effect - but it doesn't!

Plus, giving something a C2 in effect makes the remedy mandatory (in law now with the PRS). This has never been so and cannot be in this case.

As you surely understand, that is my main point. There has always been a problem with errors and inconsistency (and 'fraud'!) with EICRs, but it was much less important when EICRs had no 'teeth' (in law). Now that legislation has introduced 'teeth', it is far more important that EICR coding be as correct and consistent as possible (and certainly not 'work-seeking'), which requires the assessments to be as objective as possible (and probably for the conduct of EICRs to be fairly strictly 'regulated')

Yet if something complies with the rules, then obviously failing it for contravening non-existent rules one just happens to think a good idea is exceeding the remit.

It's not as simple as that. If EICR coding was simply 'Pass/Fail', on the basis of whether things conformed with current regs (as applied to new installations) then it would be simple - all domestic plastic CUs, in any location, would then get 'Fails'. However, EICR coding is not done on that basis - instead, it relies on the electrician's judgement as to whether, in his/her opinion, the non-conformity was sufficient to present a (significant) potential danger that warranted urgent remedial action.

Like failing all cars that do not have copper brake pipes because steel ones go rusty.

Again, judgement is necessary. Brake pipes which are corroded to the extent that the inspector's judgement is that they "present a (significant) potential danger that warrants urgent remedial action" do result in an MOT fail. That's not really much different from the judgements involved in relation to many EICR issues. As I keep saying, it's highly desirable (particularly given the 'legal teeth') that the assessment is as objective as possible - but with EICRs, MOTs or virtually anything else, there is unfortunately nearly always going to be a degree of professional judgement required in at least some situations - which opens the gates to 'inappropriate judgements', inconsistencies and even attempts at 'fraud'.

In an ideal world, everyone's opinions/judgements would be the same, so everything would be consistent, everyone would be happy and 'natural justice' would be served. However, opinions to vary. I will remind you, in relation to the plastic CU issue that, in my recent poll here (albeit with only 20 respondents), although most people agreed with you and me (no code or C3), one person agreed with the NAPIT opinion ...

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do not understand why you are continuing to argue.

You seem to be contradicting me with a long explanation which verifies what I am saying.



Things which are not dependent on judgement are not subject to differing opinions.

 

[JohnW2]

Dear Electrician. Thankyou for your report. I believe you may have coded some of the conditions incorrectly, and as you are no doubt aware this report will now prevent me successfully renting this property and will impose financial losses on my business while I remedy this situation. Because I am not sure you have coded correctly, I am going to seek a second opinion from a national body. In the meantime please provide me with details of your Professional Indemnity Insurance, which I will of course be claiming on for financial loss, should it turn out that the professional advice you have given is incorrect. Luv and kisses. The landlord.

That's essentially what most of us have been suggesting, but it's only applicable because the tenancy had not yet commenced and the OP was prepared to (maybe has) delayed the start oif the tenancy until the matter is resolved. In the more general case, with a tenant already present, the initial EICR would have started the 28-day clock ticking.

Even in this particular case, given that this thread started 13 days ago (and the EICR may well have preceded that), I suspect than an insurer (or Court) may well argue that the OP had 'plenty of time' to get another EICR (and any really necessary work) done before the intended start date of the tenancy, so they could argue that the cost of the second EICR was the only 'recoverable loss'.

It's certainly a very unsatisfactory situation, and one which is probably going to become very common - so, as I keep saying, 'something needs to change'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Things which are not dependent on judgement are not subject to differing opinions.

In the absence of any instruction or guidance in BS7671, how can the decision as to whether a particular 'non-conformity' be given a C1, C2 or C3 code (or no code) be based on anything other than individual 'judgement'?

If there is some other basis for making that decision, what is it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, in the case we are discussing, plastic CUs under stairs, there is no instruction required yet someone at NAPIT has seen fit to invent a spurious hypothesis.

Without that, the only thing to note would be the fact that it is plastic with no reference to its location - therefore no judgement needed and C3. Fact.

End of.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, in the case we are discussing, plastic CUs under stairs, there is no instruction required yet someone at NAPIT has seen fit to invent a spurious hypothesis.

As I've said, a judgement (i.e. opinion) is clearly required and NAPIT are merely offering their opinion (with which many of us disagree). As I've said before, the problem (given that we both disagree with it) is that NAPIT's opinion is probably far more likely to influence those undertaking EICRs than is the opinion of any individual electrician.

Without that, the only thing to note would be the fact that it is plastic with no reference to its location - therefore no judgement needed and C3. Fact. End of.

As you know, I agree with your opinion. However, even though it may feel 'obvious' to you, there's an awful lot of (your) personal judgement implicit in that statement - particularly given that we know that NAPIT and at least one other person have opinions which differ from yours (and mine).

To help me understand, does your opinion only apply if the plastic CU conformed with regs when installed In other words, would you still regard it as a C3 if it had been installed last year (or even 'yesterday')?

If so, does that mean that you will continue ('indefinitely') to regard plastic CUs (anywhere in domestic premises) as C3 because you personally do not believe that they represent a 'potential danger', even though BS7671 has seen fit to decide that new plastic CUs are 'not safe'. If that's the case, then would you not only be using your judgement about coding, but actually going appreciably further than that by using your judgement to 'over-ride' BS7671's view that plastic CUs represent a safety hazard?

Kind Regards, John
Edit: crucial typo corrected!

 

[mrrusty]

That's essentially what most of us have been suggesting

The point I was really making was about threatening a potential claim on PI insurance. This can be very damaging to the tradesman because whilst any claim is ongoing premiums tend to rocket, and if you ever do have a successful claim against you it may become very hard to get PI insurance at all. PI is ideal for this situation because it insures against financial loss caused by bad advice - what I was suggesting was the electrican might want to revisit his report to avoid a damaging potential PI claim.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I've said, a judgement (i.e. opinion) is clearly required and NAPIT are merely offering their opinion (with which many of us agree). As I've said before, the problem (given that we both disagree with it) is that NAPIT's opinion is probably far more likely to influence those undertaking EICRs than is the opinion of any individual electrician.

NAPIT do not make the rules so it is not up to them to make a judgement on this matter, therefore no one has to nor should take any notice of it.

As you know, I agree with your opinion. However, even though it may feel 'obvious' to you, there's an awful lot of (your) personal judgement implicit in that statement - particularly given that we know that NAPIT and at least one other person have opinions which differ from yours (and mine).

No, there isn't (a lot of my judgement) and according to you my decision is not an opinion as it is fact.
There is no regulation agreeing with NAPIT, therefore no one has to nor should take any notice of it.

To help me understand, does your opinion only apply if the plastic CU conformed with regs when installed In other words, would you still regard it as a C3 if it had been installed last year (or even 'yesterday')?

Yes. Apart from the question of 'how would an inspector know?' the report is based on the current regulations so if the CU was installed to the previous regulations, the situation is no different.
What is the alternative, call the police?

If so, does that mean that you will continue ('indefinitely') to regard plastic CUs (anywhere in domestic premises) as C3 because you personally do not believe that they represent a 'potential danger', even though BS7671 has seen fit to decide that new plastic CUs are 'not safe'. If that's the case, then would you not only be using your judgement about coding, but actually going appreciably further than that by using your judgement to 'over-ride' BS7671's view that plastic CUs represent a safety hazard?

If you want to put it like that, then I suppose that is the case.
However, it is not my judgement that it does not comply with the latest regulations but does comply with previous regulations therefore it is C3; again, it is a fact.

You can hardly say that it warrants a C2 merely because of a date which does nothing to alter the situation.

 

[JohnW2]

NAPIT do not make the rules so it is not up to them to make a judgement on this matter, ...

Very true, and I don't think that anyone has said otherwise, but they are as free as you and I, or anyone else, to voice an opinion on the matter.

... therefore no one has to nor should take any notice of it.

Indeed, just as no-one has to (or necessarily should) take any notice of your or my opinions about it. However, as I said, the 'unfortunate' thing is that people (particularly NAPIT members) are far more likely to 'take notice of' their opinion than of mine, or even yours.

No, there isn't (a lot of my judgement) and according to you my decision is not an opinion as it is fact.

I don't see how it (your belief that a plastic CU should get C3) can be called ' fact', since there is absolutely nothing in BS7671 which even guides one as to whether a plastic CU should be given a C1, C2, C3 or nothing. You accuse NAPIT of having 'made up' things, but you are doing much the same when you say that "Plastic CU = C3" (and calling it 'a fact'), aren't you?

There is no regulation agreeing with NAPIT, therefore no one has to nor should take any notice of it.

As above, I agree that no-one has necessarily to take any notice of NAPIT's opinion. There is, indeed, "no regulation agreeing with NAPIT" about this issue, but nor is there any regulation anywhere in BS7671 which indicates (or even 'guides') what EICR code should be given for non-conformity with it. So, as I keep saying, judgement is required in order to code non-conformity with any regulation in BS7671, and NAPIT are as free as anyone else to voice their opinion about how that judgement should be exercised.

Yes. Apart from the question of 'how would an inspector know?' the report is based on the current regulations so if the CU was installed to the previous regulations, the situation is no different.

You and I (and many others) do not believe that this regulation should have been introduced, but it was. BS7671 is essentially all about 'safety', so if they have introduced this regulation, they presumably must believe that, at least in some cases, it can result in a (significant) 'potential danger'. Are you saying that, nevertheless, you would never (now or at any point in the future) give a C2 to a plastic CU? If so, that would also be my personal inclination, but by so doing you/we would be 'ignoring a regulation because you/we didn't feet that it was necessary' - which, unfortunately, is not something we are really meant to do.

Do I take it that there are plenty of other non-conformities to which you would similarly never give a C2 to, because you felt that they could never result in 'potential danger' (and therefore, presumably, shouldn't really be regulations)?

If you want to put it like that, then I suppose that is the case. However, it is not my judgement that it does not comply with the latest regulations but does comply with previous regulations therefore it is C3; again, it is a fact.

It is a fact that "it does not comply with the latest regulations but does comply with previous regulations", but it is not a fact that that means that it has to be C3 - that is down to your judgement as to whether it may result in a 'significant danger'. You obviously don't think it may (result in a 'significant danger') in which case your judgement/opinion is (correctly) that it should be C3, but that does not mean that everyone would agree with you (and we know that at least some don't) ...

You can hardly say that it warrants a C2 merely because of a date which does nothing to alter the situation.

It does sound strange when put like that. However, if you are never going to give a C2 to a plastic CU, even if it were installed 'the day before' the EICR, then you're effectively saying that you do not believe that such a thing could ever result in 'potential danger', then you would be effectively 'ignoring the regulation because you didn't agree with it', wouldn't you? (it's perhaps a pity that BAS is not currently with us! ).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

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.

I wouldn't go as far as "agreed", but I can see a logic. Plus, I took the trouble to email the IET via one of the named contacts in BS7671 and effectively asked "now, this new rule about non-combustible CUs, there's guidance about saying <something>, what is the IET's opinion on this ?". I got opinion agreeing with the NAPIT opinion, but could not get them to express this as anything more than personal opinion - definitely not an official stance from the IET which I think is "not good". The IET make the rules (or at least, put their name to them), they really ought to be able to say what they officially think they mean.

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

True, but there are other things it doesn't say anything about. No I can't think of anything at the moment.

Well, in the case we are discussing, plastic CUs under stairs, there is no instruction required yet someone at NAPIT has seen fit to invent a spurious hypothesis.

They have given an opinion, possibly influenced by the same opinion I had from the IET. And there is a logic to that opinion - it's not just some spurious statement pulled from someone's backside.
The logic is quite simple. Without guidance to code C3 many or most of the existing installations, there would rightly be "some complaints". But on the other hand, if the risk were so low, there'd have been no point bringing in the new regulation.

Without that, the only thing to note would be the fact that it is plastic with no reference to its location - therefore no judgement needed and C3. Fact.

Demonstrably not fact.
Previous versions of the regs did not have this requirement. The latest version does. Therefore, "someone" must have decided that there was a risk that required mitigating and so the new requirements was introduced. Yes we all know the reasons, and the "questions" around the validity of that, but the rule was put in by a committee of professionals in the subject matter. Presumably we can all agree on that part ?
Presumably we can also agree that there is no official guidance as to how non-compliance with this regulation should be dealt with when undertaking an EICR ?
So, we find a non-compliance with a regulation, and have no official guidance on how it should be coded. We know that it does represent "a risk" - if it did not then there would have been no need to bring in the regulation. Are we agreed so far ?
So, as the inspector, we are required to decide whether and how to code the non-compliance. Isn't that exactly what "professional judgement" is all about ?

Now, you might argue that it was OK when installed, and the regs aren't retrospective, therefore it cannot be more than a C3. On that basis, no CPC in lighting circuits - even if metal fittings are in use - cannot be more than a C3. Rewirable fuses cannot be more than a C3. Heck, go back far enough and even completely non-insulated live conductors (just held by insulating spacers) cannot be more than a C3. Presumably there's nothing wrong with a (definitely not double insulated) antique iron with a B22 plug on the end of a 2 core cable - on the basis that "it used to comply" (I think, it was certainly common- and yes, I know it's deviating off into portable appliances ).

We know very well that BS7671 supports the concept of the risk of something depending on the circumstances - otherwise we'd not have whole sections on protection by separation etc. So why is it so unreasonable to consider that the risk (bearing in mind that the reason for the regulation is for protection against fire) of a plastic CU might depend on the specific installation ?
It might be in (say) a garage that is fire-barriered from the house - the risk to life is very small. It might be where it risks filling the only way out with toxic fumes and/or spitting flaming bits of plastic at people trying to escape and/or quickly creating a secondary fire in the only escape route.
Put simply, if someone were to tell me that there is no difference whatsoever between a plastic CU in a garage separated from the house by a fire barrier (i.e., it can get a right fire going and the occupants of the house will still have a good 1/2 hour to get out before it affects the house), and a plastic CU that's directly in the way of anyone trying to escape the house (and hence able to present a barrier of opaque and/or toxic smoke to them), then I'll happily call them an idiot.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I wouldn't go as far as "agreed", but I can see a logic. Plus, I took the trouble to email the IET via one of the named contacts in BS7671 and effectively asked "now, this new rule about non-combustible CUs, there's guidance about saying <something>, what is the IET's opinion on this ?". I got opinion agreeing with the NAPIT opinion, but could not get them to express this as anything more than personal opinion - definitely not an official stance from the IET which I think is "not good". The IET make the rules (or at least, put their name to them), they really ought to be able to say what they officially think they mean.

Draw your own conclusions, then.

I have asked on the IET why they have a forum rather than someone giving definitive answers to people's question. I did not get a satisfactory reply either.

They have given an opinion, possibly influenced by the same opinion I had from the IET. And there is a logic to that opinion - it's not just some spurious statement pulled from someone's backside.
The logic is quite simple. Without guidance to code C3 many or most of the existing installations, there would rightly be "some complaints". But on the other hand, if the risk were so low, there'd have been no point bringing in the new regulation.

So, you will condemn someone to compulsory replacement of a CU which has been "satisfactory" for ever.

Demonstrably not fact.

I disagree.

Previous versions of the regs did not have this requirement. The latest version does. Therefore, "someone" must have decided that there was a risk that required mitigating and so the new requirements was introduced. Yes we all know the reasons, and the "questions" around the validity of that, but the rule was put in by a committee of professionals in the subject matter. Presumably we can all agree on that part ?

There were many comments at the time that the compulsion for steel CUs as that was the only example given was a knee-jerk reaction to the London Fire Brigade as was merely a containment of a problem rather than a cure.

Presumably we can also agree that there is no official guidance as to how non-compliance with this regulation should be dealt with when undertaking an EICR ?

Yet there is in the government guidelines - C3.

So, we find a non-compliance with a regulation, and have no official guidance on how it should be coded. We know that it does represent "a risk" - if it did not then there would have been no need to bring in the regulation. Are we agreed so far ?

Nope.

So, as the inspector, we are required to decide whether and how to code the non-compliance. Isn't that exactly what "professional judgement" is all about ?

Unless no judgement is required and follow the government guidelines.

Now, you might argue that it was OK when installed, and the regs aren't retrospective, therefore it cannot be more than a C3. On that basis, no CPC in lighting circuits - even if metal fittings are in use - cannot be more than a C3.

No. There should not be metal fittings. If there are no parts to earth then why does it matter?

Rewirable fuses cannot be more than a C3.

Is it not allowed to use them? I must have missed that as well.

I think you are scraping the barrel.

 

[JohnW2]

... Presumably we can also agree that there is no official guidance as to how non-compliance with this regulation should be dealt with when undertaking an EICR ?

Yet there is in the government guidelines - C3.

I must have missed that. Where exactly in the 'government guidelines' does it say that plastic CUs must be given C3s?

Kind Regards, John