Switch next to sink

[EFLImpudence]

Ah. I must have been getting confused, sorry.

The guidelines:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...safety-standards-in-the-private-rented-sector

say C3s are acceptable and landlords do not have to remedy C3 items.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Will ESF BPG4 do? I knew it was somewhere.

Page 16 but go to 15 first.

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1200/best-practice-guide-4-issue-4.pdf

 

[JohnW2]

Ah. I must have been getting confused, sorry. The guidelines: .... say C3s are acceptable and landlords do not have to remedy C3 items.

Yes, we know that they say that, but I do I take it that you are now agreeing that those guidelines (which, after all are guidelines for landlords, not electricians) say nothing about what things should, or should not, be given a C3 (or any other code)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Will ESF BPG4 do? I knew it was somewhere. Page 16 but go to 15 first.
https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1200/best-practice-guide-4-issue-4.pdf

Are ESF are not 'one step worse' than Napit? Aren't they the people who, until they eventually removed it from their website, were publicising some quite extraordinary 'statistics' about domestic electric shocks?

Whatever, even if they are 'no worse' than NAPIT, it's still just a matter of someone else's 'opinion', nothing remotely 'official', let alone 'instructions'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know. Are they not NICEIC?

Either way is it not guidance for those who need it? You know what I think of guidance publications.


Who was it said NAPIT Code Breakers contradicted ESF and deemed plastic CUs understairs C2?

Could what we have been told have been incorrect all along?

Whatever, even if they are 'no worse' than NAPIT, it's still just a matter of someone else's 'opinion', nothing remotely 'official', let alone 'instructions'.

I thought guidance was all that was being discussed. Has anyone said anything is instruction?

 

[JohnW2]

I don't know. Are they not NICEIC?

I have no idea.

Either way is it not guidance for those who need it? You know what I think of guidance publications.

Indeed. Those who undertake EICRs and are not inclined to, or not able to, make judgements about coding for themselves may look for inspiration ('guidance') from the opinions of others - be that EFLI's opinions, JohnW2's opinions, NAPIT's opinions, ESF's opinions or anyone else's opinions - but, as discussed at length, those are all opinions, and none carries (or should carry) any particular weight. Even if they look for such 'guidance', those undertaking EICRs must ultimately take personally responsibility for whatever codes they record.

Who was it said NAPIT Code Breakers contradicted ESF and deemed plastic CUs understairs C2?

Dunno.

I thought guidance was all that was being discussed. Has anyone said anything is instruction?

There is certainly no 'instruction', nor even anything I would call 'official guidance', anywhere at the moment, and that has been my major point.

I have 'said something' about 'instructions', in that my view is that there should be 'instructions' regarding the coding of EICRs, in order to remove as much subjectivity as possible, thereby hopefully improving consistency and reducing 'anomalous' coding - and that instruction would have to be either in BS7671 itself (to cover all EICRs) and/or would have to be in legislation (if only for 'PRS EICRs').

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Will ESF BPG4 do? I knew it was somewhere. ... Page 16 but go to 15 first.
https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1200/best-practice-guide-4-issue-4.pdf

Who was it said NAPIT Code Breakers contradicted ESF and deemed plastic CUs understairs C2?

I've read it now and, yes, it looks as if the someone was right.

If I recall correctly, NAPIT said that a plastic should get a C2 if under wooden stairs or in an 'escape route' (whatever that is) and a C3 if anywhere else. However, as you have presumably just observed, ESF say that it should get a C3 if under wooden stairs or in an 'escape route' (whatever that is) but no code at all if anywhere else.

... which all goes to prove that, as we have been discussing, these are just 'opinions', and it is in the nature of opinions to vary! (which is obviously not what one wants when it can make the difference between a landlord suffering, or not suffering, a quite appreciable expenditure - hence, in my opinion, 'instructions' required )

Kind Regards, John

 

[mrrusty]

as we have been discussing, these are just 'opinions', and it is in the nature of opinions to vary!

Yes, but in the world of real professionals* giving advice, they can be sued if the advice causes financial loss which is why we have PI insurance, and is also why PI insurance has gone through the roof for financial advisers who have to advise if a defined benefit pension can safely be transferred. In fact PI in this sector is now so onerous, most FA avoid this part of the business.

We need the same to happen here. We need a landlord who has suffered financial loss caused by bad advice to sue for damages. This will focus minds very quickly and would pull the "opinion" back to reality and away from the "if I give this a fail I will get some work" mentality.

*Electricians should be classed as real professionals, but while so many continue to wear spurs and stetsons, it ain't going to happen.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but in the world of real professionals* giving advice, they can be sued if the advice causes financial loss which is why we have PI insurance ....... We need a landlord who has suffered financial loss caused by bad advice to sue for damages.

Agreed, but I think you miss the point in the bit of my message you quoted which reminded us that "... it is in the nature of opinions to vary ...".

As per my last post, in relation to the plastic CU issue, we have two seemingly 'significant (some people might say at least 'semi-authoritative') bodies' offering very different views, which could have very different financial implications (which, in some circumstances, you might regard as 'losses') on a landlord - one saying that, depending where the CU is, it gets either a C3 ior no code (i.e. no cost to landlord in either case), whereas the other is saying that it gets a C2 if it is under wooden stairs or in an 'escape route' (something which, BTW, seems nowhere to be defined for a domestic dwelling) - the latter involving the landlord in the not inconsiderable cost of having the CU replaced.

Given such conflicting opinions from at least two (probably seemingly 'semi-authoritative') bodies, if one were to sue, how would a Court decide whether the landlord's outgoings constituted a recoverable loss caused by "bad advice"?? As you've said before, it would presumably come down to a battle between two opposing sets of expert witnesses - but that's probably almost as much of a 'lottery' as was the choice of who to get to undertake the EICR in the first place.

As I keep saying, now that EICRs have acquired 'teeth' (in relation to rental property) I really think that something needs to be done to regulate EICRs, in particular to dramatically improve the consistency of EICR coding - and that would seem to require as much explicit 'instruction' as possible in relation to coding, minimising the extent to which there were subjective elements ('personal opinions') involved in coding decisions.

That's how I see it, anyway!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

About the ESF...
https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/about-us/our-history/

 

[JohnW2]

About the ESF... https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/about-us/our-history/

Thanks.

OK, so it's essentially NICEIC. In that case, we have two of the main trade organisations (NAPIT and 'NICIEC') fundamentally disagreeing in relation to how a plastic CU under wood stairs or in an 'escape route' should be coded, and the difference can make a big financial difference to a landlord.

So, as I recently wrote to mrrusty, how on earth could a court decide whether a landlord had made a recoverable loss as a result of "bad advice" ("bad" EICR coding), if that advice related to a CU under wooden stairs or in an 'escape route' - toss a coin, perhaps?

This is a totally unsatisfactory situation!

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Pragmatically it suggests a landlord should favour NICEIC, when choosing an inspecting electrician. Clearly the situation is not viable in the long run.

 

[JohnW2]

Pragmatically it suggests a landlord should favour NICEIC, when choosing an inspecting electrician. ...

In relation to that one particular issue, yes, but there may well be countless other examples of significant (to a landlord) potential differences, which might not all be in the same direction - but I haven't got the time or inclination to compare them 'item-by-item. Maybe someone else would like to do that?

Clearly the situation is not viable in the long run.

As you say, clearly ! In my opinion, to the extent that is possible, there really needs to be just one 'hymn book', ideally with compulsion to comply with it. There will inevitably always be some grey areas, which require subjective judgement/opinion/discretion/whatever, but the system really ought to try to minimise that, since that's where the 'inconsistency' (which looks like 'anomalous coding' from one side of the fence) comes from.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Yet there is in the government guidelines - C3.

Citation for government guidelines ?

Unless no judgement is required and follow the government guidelines.

Citation for government guidelines ?

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

Has that always been the case ? My suspicion is that if we go back far enough, it was "OK" to have metal fittings, or at least, fittings that were not Class II as we understand it these days without them being earthed. One item that comes to mind would be the old fashioned round light switches with a brass dolly and possibly a brass cover - but no means to earth any of the exposed metalwork, at least, that's how I remember them.

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

533.1.2.2 - Fuses having fuse links likely to be removed or replaced by an ordinary person shall be of a type which complies with BS 88-3, BS 3036 or BS 1362
So, how do you code an old Wylex rewireable fuse box ? Never more than a C3 because "it used to be OK", or something else given that it allows the user to work on the basis of "if the fuse blows, it was obviously not thick enough wire" (my assumption is that this is the reason for prohibiting them)

I think you are scraping the barrel.

Not really, just coming up with things that were once considered completely acceptable (and which come to mind), but which aren't acceptable now. By your logic, all of them should still be completely acceptable because they once were. As has been discussed in here "a few times", attitude to risk has changed over the years - we (mostly) no longer have people switching sockets off to prevent the electric leaking out when there's no plug in it, and we (mostly) no longer have people so afraid of this new fangled electrickery that they won't touch it. And from the PoV of the regulatory authorities, there's much more emphasis on protecting people from themselves rather than on expecting people to act sensibly.

 

[JohnW2]

533.1.2.2 - Fuses having fuse links likely to be removed or replaced by an ordinary person shall be of a type which complies with BS 88-3, BS 3036 or BS 1362 ... So, how do you code an old Wylex rewireable fuse box ?

You seem to have given the answer yourself. "Old Wylex rewireable fuse boxes" ('Wylex Standard/Classic) use/used BS3036 fuses - so, per the reg you cite, they are complaint.

Never more than a C3 because "it used to be OK" ...

As above, it still is 'OK' and therefore requires no code at all.

Am I missing your point?