Non-Combustible is the phrase I believe - and an example is given of steel. No idea if the BS standard for CUs says something different now, but there's no reason in principle why they couldn't find a suitable plastic or other material that was non-combustible - I just suspect it would cost more so they went with the cheapest option.
Non-flame propagating would be term;
I don't normally berate other members but I'm sorry, get a clue. Wiring Regulations are non-statutory (not law), the statue (law) applicable to Electricians and Electrical Installations is Electricity at Work 1989.
Your forgetting the EICRs for rented properties are now a legal requirement. And the guidance to landlords is that the EICR ensures there properties Comply with the latest version of BS7671. An EICR was not a mandatory document. But has that changed. I will not comment yes or no because I am not a trained lawyer barrister or judge. Thats the whole point. We are only putting our personal view points on a forum. A court and there interpretation of case law is another matter entirely
Yes, but when you read the 18th you see that it does not contain a single standard which existing installations have to meet - it only applies to the design, erection, additions, alterations, and verification of electrical installations designed after 31st December 2018.
They aren't, strictly speaking - there's nothing in the law which makes them so. It's just that it's the way that makes the most sense. It's a bit like Part P not actually requiring work to comply with BS 7671, but the reality being it makes precious little sense to do otherwise.
Except of course that is impossible, unless you use the special definition of "comply".
Which in all probability will never happen - any landlord faced with a report he doesn't like could have the place totally rewired using russ andrews cryogenically treated cables and a gold-plated CU for less than the cost of lawyers.
It doesn't matter what the 18th says as it has no legal standing. The legal authority comes from the landlords having a legal obligation to have an eicr that complies with the 18th. And thats from government legislation not any edition of BS7671.
Since you clearly disagree with
perhaps you'd like to quote the part of The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/312/contents/made which imposes a legal obligation to have an eicr that complies with the 18th.
And thats exactly where this thread gets a definitive answer phew ? There is a lot of information out there. But nothing in government guidelines that says Landlords EICRs or anyone else's EICRs have to legally comply with the current edition of the regulations. Just a legal requirement for landlords to have an EICR carried out every 5 years. ?
Given that the wording in the above legislation doesn't, iirc, state that the outcome MUST be satisfactory, a LL could just have an EICR undertaken to 18th edition, have it come back as unsatisfactory and yet still have met the requirements of the legislation. Surely not?
Indeed.
The IET also put out other guidance in a Q+A, apparently contradicting the guidance you linked to above. The forum censors links to wiring matters, but if you put "Consumer units: a brief overview" into your search engine (quote marks included) it should come up top of the list:
almost as bigb as my dossier at Police HQ., Anfield.
Can't be, last I heard some Scouse git nicked it.....thieving bastards will take anything these days!
“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);
Maybe they got the information required between doing the test sheet and completing the front page? ?
If there was a clear concensus then there wouldn't be a difference between the two - that is part of the trouble.
Not even AFDDs should get to £1200 for a new board unless it's ludicrously large!
Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
Unfortunately price of insurance seems to be no guarantee that they'll be any good when you need them - and the only way to find out is to need them, which isn't ideal!
They put a retardent in it. Retardent was acidic. This was during the building boom in the noughties. Concrete was delivered on site hours before the brickies arrived due to demand. Issues resulting from the retardent now manifesting
Yes. Its a "cu de sac" basically. Builder long gone anyway. But when you consider the pages and pages of stuff you receive on paying for public liability it would be really nice if someone told you upfront what you can realistically expect to happen in the event of a claim. I am disappointed but can't say I, m totally surprised. Yes, it cost me a night or two, s sleep but I am determined to draw a, line in the sand and not allow it fester. I, m stung but not bankrupted. Am grateful for that
You say it’s a claim on your prof. Indemnity ins was the matter over an eicr you carried out I take it, or with cabling that you personally installed?
