testing existing installations to current edition of BS 7671

[Dave the spark]

A question, if you please...

When testing an existing installation BS 7671 states that it should be tested to the current edition of regs, and that doesn't necessarily mean the installation will be dangerous if wired previous to that edition.

My question is, how should you code for no RCD protection for additional protection? Is this, in all cases, a code 2 observation?

I'm still gaining experience in testing and inspection and currently sitting my 2394/95. So, in short, no snide answers

 

[Risteard]

My question is, how should you code for no RCD protection for additional protection? Is this, in all cases, a code 2 observation?

That is a judgement call for the inspector to make. Personally I can see circumstances where it would warrant a C2 observation and also circumstances where it would warrant a C3 observation.

 

[Dave the spark]

That is a judgement call for the inspector to make. Personally I can see circumstances where it would warrant a C2 observation and also circumstances where it would warrant a C3 observation.

That was my thoughts on it tbh. So for instance, where I might C2 a shower without RCD protection I'd probably only C3 a bathroom light fitting/switch. I'm talking purely domestic here btw.

I wouldn't mind your thoughts on coding socket outlets without RCD protection, in my mind I could see reasons for C2, supplying portable outdoor equipment. Do you code the circuit as whole or the sockets individually which would more likely to be used for such?

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Des 56]

[QUOTE="Dave the spark

I wouldn't mind your thoughts on coding socket outlets without RCD protection, in my mind I could see reasons for C2, supplying portable outdoor equipment. Do you code the circuit as whole or the sockets individually which would more likely to be used for such?

Thanks for the reply.[/QUOTE]


I would suggest your thoughts on various coding for your "own" perception of the dangers of each situation is exactly the way to proceed with the gaining of experience of test and inspect
If the decision making is allied with competence that would seem to make the ideal inspector

regards the socket circuit question
I think the circuit has a whole would now have to be coded
Although at the time of original installation,the likely to supply outdoor equipment may suggest an individual outlet needing RCD protection
The improvement you recomend should bring the whole of the circuit to current requirements

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Hmm, you want to test to the current edition, then state you can see reasons to use code 2 for something that isn't a requirement in the current edition, and hasn't been a requirement for over 10 years?
Also, unless the installation is either Horticultural or Agricultural, there is not now and never has been a requirement for a socket circuit to be provided with RCD protection.

To my mind, any observations should make reference to a particular Regulation that is not being complied with.

 

[westward10]

That was my thoughts on it tbh. So for instance, where I might C2 a shower without RCD protection I'd probably only C3 a bathroom light fitting/switch. I'm talking purely domestic here btw.

I wouldn't mind your thoughts on coding socket outlets without RCD protection, in my mind I could see reasons for C2, supplying portable outdoor equipment. Do you code the circuit as whole or the sockets individually which would more likely to be used for such?

Thanks for the reply.

The absence of rcd protection needs a minimum C3 entry and as already stated this is down to the inspector. I agree I would C2 the socket being used for equipment out of doors but would C3 the shower.

 

[Octopus]

This is a useful read ...


http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/mediafile/100404922/Best-Practice-Guide-4-Issue-4.pdf

 

[Dave the spark]

Hmm, you want to test to the current edition, then state you can see reasons to use code 2 for something that isn't a requirement in the current edition, and hasn't been a requirement for over 10 years?
Also, unless the installation is either Horticultural or Agricultural, there is not now and never has been a requirement for a socket circuit to be provided with RCD protection.

To my mind, any observations should make reference to a particular Regulation that is not being complied with.

Why on the domestic eicr inspection schedule then, does it ask for provision of additional protection by a 30mA RCD for all socket outlets of rating of 20A or less?
I'm genuinely interested and keen to learn but I think your post had an air of pomposity about it. Apologies if I've taken it the wrong way.

This is a useful read ...


http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/mediafile/100404922/Best-Practice-Guide-4-Issue-4.pdf

The absence of rcd protection needs a minimum C3 entry and as already stated this is down to the inspector. I agree I would C2 the socket being used for equipment out of doors but would C3 the shower.

I would suggest your thoughts on various coding for your "own" perception of the dangers of each situation is exactly the way to proceed with the gaining of experience of test and inspect
If the decision making is allied with competence that would seem to make the ideal inspector

regards the socket circuit question
I think the circuit has a whole would now have to be coded
Although at the time of original installation,the likely to supply outdoor equipment may suggest an individual outlet needing RCD protection
The improvement you recomend should bring the whole of the circuit to current requirements

Thanks for the replies fellas, I realise coding has a degree of ambiguity and personal preference. I'm just trying to be clear in my head as to a consensus for certain observations.

 

[Octopus]

Thanks for the replies fellas, I realise coding has a degree of ambiguity and personal preference. I'm just trying to be clear in my head as to a consensus for certain observations.

That's why the best practice guide comes in handy as you can point customers at it......

 

[Dave the spark]

That's why the best practice guide comes in handy as you can point customers at it......

I'll have a read at that tonight while I'm studying for my 2395 written. I've passed 4/5 exams so far for the 2394/95 so this is my last one and I'm hoping for a first time clean sweep

 

[Wilko]

Good luck Dave !

 

[Dave the spark]

Good luck Dave !

Cheers Wilko, I'll update this thread after Wednesday. Although it'll probs be another 7-8 weeks before I get a result

 

[DPG]

Hmm, you want to test to the current edition, then state you can see reasons to use code 2 for something that isn't a requirement in the current edition, and hasn't been a requirement for over 10 years?
Also, unless the installation is either Horticultural or Agricultural, there is not now and never has been a requirement for a socket circuit to be provided with RCD protection.

To my mind, any observations should make reference to a particular Regulation that is not being complied with.

I'm confused by your post here I must admit.
Daz

 

[westward10]

I'm confused by your post here I must admit.
Daz

You aren't alone there.

 

[Dave the spark]

I'm confused by your post here I must admit.
Daz

You aren't alone there.

Thank God. Thought it was just me!

 

[The Ghost]

Hi, yes well this is, as described by STROMA tech support, "a very grey area" He said at the ELEX show he spoke with NIC, NAPIT and others and no one agreed at all on classification of codes. We had to make the same judgement on EICR for commercial buildings and discussed it on this forum. I nearly got a new ****hole ripped in the process. I am pretty thick skinned so didn't worry about it too much. There are pretty well no RCDs throughout four large buildings which finally we classified as C3 throughout. But there were good reasons for this. I have (I think) attached an analysis of Best Practice guide IV the green bits are about RCDs. Just parsed all the mentions into a spreadsheet then to PDF.

 

[Risteard]

Hi, yes well this is, as described by STROMA tech support, "a very grey area" He said at the ELEX show he spoke with NIC, NAPIT and others and no one agreed at all on classification of codes. We had to make the same judgement on EICR for commercial buildings and discussed it on this forum. I nearly got a new ****hole ripped in the process. I am pretty thick skinned so didn't worry about it too much. There are pretty well no RCDs throughout four large buildings which finally we classified as C3 throughout. But there were good reasons for this. I have (I think) attached an analysis of Best Practice guide IV the green bits are about RCDs. Just parsed all the mentions into a spreadsheet then to PDF.

One thing to remember about the Best Practice Guides (aside from the fact that it's merely the opinion of the Electrical Safety Council (campaigning under the name Electrical Safety First) and as such only a guide) is that they only deal with domestic installations.

 

[The Ghost]

only deal with domestic

A very interesting point indeed!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Why on the domestic eicr inspection schedule then, does it ask for provision of additional protection by a 30mA RCD for all socket outlets of rating of 20A or less?
I'm genuinely interested and keen to learn but I think your post had an air of pomposity about it. Apologies if I've taken it the wrong way.
Thanks for the replies fellas, I realise coding has a degree of ambiguity and personal preference. I'm just trying to be clear in my head as to a consensus for certain observations.

As far as I am aware, it does not specify 'all sockets outlets' in the inspection schedule.
My understanding, is that it asks for:
Provision of additional protection by RCD not exceeding 30mA:
Socket-outlets rated at 20A or less, unless exempt (411.3.3).
The reason it asks for this to be checked, is because the current edition of the Regulations requires all LV socket-outlets rated at 20A or less to be provided with 30mA RCD protection, except those labelled or otherwise identified as being for specific items of equipment.

Perhaps there is a pomposity about the post?
This could be because to my mind, any report should be accurate and specify exactly what (if anything) is wrong.
For instance in the scenario you proposed in your OP, my observation would be something like:
Lack of RCD protection for socket-outlets as per BS7671 Reg. 411.3.3. Code C3 or C2.
I would not make an observation regarding the lack of RCD protection for socket-outlets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors, as there is no longer such a requirement.
I would also not make an observation regarding the lack of RCD protection for socket circuits, unless I was inspecting an Agricultral/Horticultral installation.
I would most certainly not make the observation that I have seen made by some: "No RCD in Fuse Box. Code C2."
The reason I have put code C2 or C3, is because my choice of code would depend on whether the installation complied with the requirements at the time of design/construction.
If it did not comply, code C2.
If it did comply, code C3.

 

[Risteard]

The reason I have put code C2 or C3, is because my choice of code would depend on whether the installation complied with the requirements at the time of design/construction.
If it did not comply, code C2.
If it did comply, code C3.

I'm sorry but that is a nonsense. How can you suggest that one identical non-compliance is more/less dangerous than the other simply because of when it was done?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Simple reason is, because that's what the current Regulations say.
If I am to conduct an inspection in accordance with the current Regulations, then I have to take on board what those Regulations say.
I cannot to my mind ignore them, just because I believe they are wrong.

 

[Risteard]

Simple reason is, because that's what the current Regulations say.

No they don't.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No they don't.

Lol.
I see you continue to disagree with myself, your registration body and every other registration body in the country.
Knock yourself out.

 

[Risteard]

Lol.
I see you continue to disagree with myself, your registration body and every other registration body in the country.
Knock yourself out.

I'm sorry but where does it suggest anywhere that a non-compliance should be coded differently depending on whether it was permissible at the time of installation? And for that matter, given that you have claimed it, where have the NICEIC suggested that?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There are a number of places where such is suggested.
BS7671, BPGs, advice and guidance from various bodies such as the IET, NICEIC, etc.
The NICEIC just as every other registration body in the country direct their members to the BPGs for guidance.

 

[westward10]

The BPG is just that, a guide.

 

[Dave the spark]

I would most certainly not make the observation that I have seen made by some: "No RCD in Fuse Box. Code C2."
The reason I have put code C2 or C3, is because my choice of code would depend on whether the installation complied with the requirements at the time of design/construction.
If it did not comply, code C2.
If it did comply, code C3.

You seem to be dismissing me by the stupidity of others judging by your first line there.

Also, BS7671 states that existing installations should be inspected and tested to the current edition, so that's why I asked the question in the OP and that's why you've only served to confuse matters with your response. I guess that's what happens when you're so quick to take an air of superiority.

I've worked for local authority who wanted me to test to the edition the installation was designed in, now I'm studying to become a better inspector and I've read to the contrary so I was hoping to use the experience of others on what is, after all, a forum to gleen a definitive answer. Is that ok by you?

 

[Risteard]

There are a number of places where such is suggested.
BS7671, BPGs, advice and guidance from various bodies

Some direct quotes from these alleged sources would be useful.

 

[westward10]

Some direct quotes from these alleged sources would be useful.

That Guide is for those who shouldn't be doing EICRs

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You seem to be dismissing me by the stupidity of others judging by your first line there.

Also, BS7671 states that existing installations should be inspected and tested to the current edition, so that's why I asked the question in the OP and that's why you've only served to confuse matters with your response. I guess that's what happens when you're so quick to take an air of superiority.

I've worked for local authority who wanted me to test to the edition the installation was designed in, now I'm studying to become a better inspector and I've read to the contrary so I was hoping to use the experience of others on what is, after all, a forum to gleen a definitive answer. Is that ok by you?

No, not at all.
That was just me commenting on something that I have seen in the past.

Yes existing installations should inspected and tested to current editions of the Regulations, which is why I queried the suggestion to use a code C2 for a non-compliance with a requirement that ceased to exist in 2008.
I apologise for any confusion or feelings of inferiority caused by my post.

If it were the case that you were being asked to conduct an Initial Verification on an installation designed to an earlier version of the Regulations, then yes you would be expected to conduct your Inspection and Testing to ensure compliance with that earlier version.

If the Local Authority is asking you to Inspect and Test an existing installation to an earlier version, there is no reason from a legal view point why you could not do so.
If I were to conduct such an Inspection, I would be recording the fact that the Inspection has been conducted to the earlier version and that there may be non-compliances with the current version which may render the installation unsafe for continued use.
Good luck with your quest for a definitive answer.

 

[Dave the spark]

No, not at all.
That was just me commenting on something that I have seen in the past.

Yes existing installations should inspected and tested to current editions of the Regulations, which is why I queried the suggestion to use a code C2 for a non-compliance with a requirement that ceased to exist in 2008.
I apologise for any confusion or feelings of inferiority caused by my post.

If it were the case that you were being asked to conduct an Initial Verification on an installation designed to an earlier version of the Regulations, then yes you would be expected to conduct your Inspection and Testing to ensure compliance with that earlier version.

If the Local Authority is asking you to Inspect and Test an existing installation to an earlier version, there is no reason from a legal view point why you could not do so.
If I were to conduct such an Inspection, I would be recording the fact that the Inspection has been conducted to the earlier version and that there may be non-compliances with the current version which may render the installation unsafe for continued use.
Good luck with your quest for a definitive answer.

Right, let's start again. I'm not here to bicker with anyone and I'm always happy to take heed of others experience.

Genuine question here, which requirement ceased to exist in 2008?

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Some direct quotes from these alleged sources would be useful.

I am certain that you are just as able as I am to read the guidance in the BPGs and spot examples.
One example that springs to mind is in relation to lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower.
The BPG advises a code C3 where the location has supplementary bonding, whereas code C2 if there is no supplementary bonding.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Right, let's start again. I'm not here to bicker with anyone and I'm always happy to take heed of others experience.

Genuine question here, which requirement ceased to exist in 2008?

Thanks.

The requirement to provide RCD protection for socket-outlets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors.

 

[Dave the spark]

The requirement to provide RCD protection for socket-outlets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors.

So it changed to the all encompassing RCD protection for sockets outlets of 20amp and below? Therefore you would C3 as it's not my place to opine whether it can or will be used to supply outdoor equipment?

 

[westward10]

I am certain that you are just as able as I am to read the guidance in the BPGs and spot examples.
One example that springs to mind is in relation to lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower.
The BPG advises a code C3 where the location has supplementary bonding, whereas code C2 if there is no supplementary bonding.

I think you need to stop referring to the BPG.

 

[Dave the spark]

I think you need to stop referring to the BPG.

What is the BPG?

 

[westward10]

Best Practice Guide, essentially a Guide to guide people who aren't competent to do EICRs.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What is the BPG?

Best Practice Guide, published by the Electrical Safety Council, which I believe may be now known as Electrical Safety First or something similar.
What Westwood has not mentioned, is that all of the registration bodies in the U.K. advise their members to use the BPGs for guidance.

 

[westward10]

Best Practice Guide, published by the Electrical Safety Council, which I believe may be now known as Electrical Safety First or something similar.
What Westwood has not mentioned, is that all of the registration bodies in the U.K. advise their members to use the BPGs for guidance.

I have never been advised to have this Guide, maybe the Bodies recommend it to those who need a bit of "guidance".

 

[Dave the spark]

Best Practice Guide, essentially a Guide to guide people who aren't competent to do EICRs.

Best Practice Guide, published by the Electrical Safety Council, which I believe may be now known as Electrical Safety First or something similar.
What Westwood has not mentioned, is that all of the registration bodies in the U.K. advise their members to use the BPGs for guidance.

Of course, I just couldn't get the abbreviation

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So it changed to the all encompassing RCD protection for sockets outlets of 20amp and below? Therefore you would C3 as it's not my place to opine whether it can or will be used to supply outdoor equipment?

To an extent yes.
There were two major changes intended to remove ambiguity.
First being the phrase "could reasonably be expected" was removed, the second being a requirement for all mobile (portable) equipment used outdoors to be provided with RCD protection irrespective of the method of connection to the supply.
However, as it was a requirement in both the 15th and the 16th editions for a socket-outlet which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors, many installations without such RCD protection would not have complied with the Regulations in force at the time of their design/construction.
As such there would be nothing preventing a code C2 being applied.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have never been advised to have this Guide, maybe the Bodies recommend it to those who need a bit of "guidance".

Been a while since I checked, but it used to be, and likely still is the case, that all of the registration bodies' websites will have a link or a download option for the BPGs.

 

[Risteard]

I am certain that you are just as able as I am to read the guidance in the BPGs and spot examples.
One example that springs to mind is in relation to lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower.
The BPG advises a code C3 where the location has supplementary bonding, whereas code C2 if there is no supplementary bonding.

In other words it doesn't suggest that the coding should be based on installation date so my point stands.

 

[westward10]

Been a while since I checked, but it used to be, and likely still is the case, that all of the registration bodies' websites will have a link or a download option for the BPGs.

It is not a required document, the only Guide I have been asked to obtain is the Only Site Guide which is a total waste of money as it sits on the shelf never opened.

 

[Midwest]

I don't do EICR's.
I have been reading this thread, but can't quite understand what the recent debate is about.

A) Is it on one side, that an installation should be inspected & tested to the edition of BS7671 that applied at the time that the installation was installed.

B) Whilst the other, that an installation should be inspected & tested to the current edition of BS7671, irrespective of the date of installation.

C) The classification codes, should be applied accordingly as in A).

Just curious?

 

[Richard Burns]

I don't do EICR's.
I have been reading this thread, but can't quite understand what the recent debate is about.

A) Is it on one side, that an installation should be inspected & tested to the edition of BS7671 that applied at the time that the installation was installed.

B) Whilst the other, that an installation should be inspected & tested to the current edition of BS7671, irrespective of the date of installation.

C) The classification codes, should be applied accordingly as in A).

Just curious?

I think the initial approach from the OP was that he had been instructed previously, and incorrectly, to test to the edition applicable at the installation date and was now interested to gain guidance on coding a lack of 30mA RCD protection where the current regulations require this as additional protection as he is now inspecting and testing to the current edition of the wiring regulations.

The thread has then provided various opinions on various coding issues including 30mA RCD protection and given a range of ways of coding considering approaches that cover most options of either just current edition or both current and previous editions of the wiring regulations and also include considerations of the validity of the best practice guide from ESF.

And just to add my opinion:

I believe that most electricians would agree that inspection and testing is completed by reference to the current edition of the wiring regulations.
I then think that it is up to the inspector to assess the installation, or parts of it, from a safety standpoint to apply his experienced engineering judgement on whether the installation poses a hazard or potential hazard that may place the users of the installation at risk.
The level of risk that the inspector decides on will generate an appropriate code for the hazard.

In order to provide as consistent response as possible (though, as shown by this thread, consistency is not good) non compliance with the current regulations should be considered; by definition a compliant situation should not pose a risk; conversely a non compliant situation may or may not pose a significant risk depending on circumstance.

Electrical Safety First, in conjunction with major electrical organisations, has produced the best practice guide to provide an industry standard from which to base the inspectors coding, though the circumstances of each installation are different this can provide guidance on commonly accepted approaches.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I believe this discussion is/was about whether the severity of an observational code should differ depending on when an installation was designed/constructed.

 

[Midwest]

I believe this discussion is/was about whether the severity of an observational code should differ depending on when an installation was designed/constructed.

As I said before, I do not do EICR's, I haven't undergone any such training, as such my opinion is not based on experience or qualification. But here's my two pennyworth.

If an inspector is to base an opinion or observation based upon earlier editions of BS7671, as opposed to the current edition, he or she would need to have a recollection or access to those previous additions to make that judgment. For a newly qualified inspector, that might be problematic. Also, an inspector would need to know the exact date of the installation, so it could be cross referenced to the appropriate edition of BS7671. If an inspector was asked to assess an installation installed in 1964, would it be sensible to code the installation to the level of the 13th edition?

To an unqualified 'inspector' like myself, it seems too problematic & unreliable, to base opinions on standards from the past, more easily scaled to the current standards. If, in a few years time, when I hang up my snips, and then ask for an electrician to assess the safety of the wiring in my retirement home, I would expect those opinions to be based on the most recent & modern standards, and not those of yesteryear. Whilst I can see some lee way in both sides of the argument, plastic consumer units for example, I think its unrealistic to code things differently, because of an installations age.

Just my opinion.

 

[westward10]

I think this is always going to create mixed views and it is only the inspection part and the Coding which creates this. I don't believe the BPG holds any validity but is a handy tool for those who lack experience in these matters, this then begs the question should they be undertaking such tasks especially on older installations where they lack the ability to date the original install. As with anything gaining knowledge working alongside more seasoned electricians is invaluable when assessing older installations and wiring systems. BS7671 has never given advise on Category or Coding applications although it does now say lack of additional rcd protection should be given a minimum Code 3 entry, but this isn't specific.

 

[kingeri]

I was looking at an install done to the 16th (by my dad!), in 2006 so not that old, and it had the usual split load board with downstairs sockets and shower on RCD side. I wasn't doing a periodic, I was adding a few sockets upstairs, but I did think about this thread, and mentioned to the client the benefits of spending a bit to bring the installation up to a safer condition. It was easy enough to add RCD protection to the relevant circuits pretty cheaply within the existing Wylex CU, using bits I had in the car (a couple of RCBOs). I considered this prudent, to give him that option. My point is, I considered this worth mentioning, but never even thought of mentioning other non-compliances with the current edition of BS7671, most notably the plastic CU. Would anyone else have gone that step further and recommended a board change? I doubt it. That is the fine line between using judgement and integrity to recommend honest upgrades that offer genuine safety advantages, and milking customers for an extra bit of coin. He did say that the last spark he had in to fit an outside light had tried to persuade him to change his board.