Applying regs retrospectively

[Guest125]

I know there is a lot out there who say that installations that were installed to a earlier regulation do not have to be brought up to the current if it was designed and installed to an earlier version.

My issue with this is:

1) You would have to know exactly when the installation was designed and completed along with any alterations over the years. Very unlikely in my opinion without a clear paper trail of certs and reports and would be a guess at best.

2) You would need to have access to every version of the regs and all amendments to see when (example) reg 123.4.5 came into force. Say 123.4.5 was not in the 15th 1st amendment but was in the 3rd amendment. Even then you could not be sure if it was under a different reg number in other regs books.

I suppose my question is would it not be easier to advise customers on bringing their installation unto current standards no matter how uncomfortable this may seem. Without specifics I would imagine most issues would only be C3 anyway so would still warrant a 'satisfactory" assessment.

Just my interpretation but I am interested how others can ascertain points 1 & 2 above if they state regulations cannot be back dated?

Discuss.

 

[Andy78]

I know there is a lot out there who say that installations that were installed to a earlier regulation do not have to be brought up to the current if it was designed and installed to an earlier version.

My issue with this is:

1) You would have to know exactly when the installation was designed and completed along with any alterations over the years. Very unlikely in my opinion without a clear paper trail of certs and reports and would be a guess at best.

2) You would need to have access to every version of the regs and all amendments to see when (example) reg 123.4.5 came into force. Say 123.4.5 was not in the 15th 1st amendment but was in the 3rd amendment. Even then you could not be sure if it was under a different reg number in other regs books.

I suppose my question is would it not be easier to advise customers on bringing their installation unto current standards no matter how uncomfortable this may seem. Without specifics I would imagine most issues would only be C3 anyway so would still warrant a 'satisfactory" assessment.

Just my interpretation but I am interested how others can ascertain points 1 & 2 above if they state regulations cannot be back dated?

Discuss.

It may be easier, but may also amount to fraud depending on what you say and how you say it to the customer. Any work that is carried out unnecessarily whilst telling the customer it is necessary is clearly misleading at best and unlawful at worst.

 

[Guest125]

It may be easier, but may also amount to fraud depending on what you say and how you say it to the customer. Any work that is carried out unnecessarily whilst telling the customer it is necessary is clearly misleading at best and unlawful at worst.

Yes but you should not give advice in a EICR (IE - requires re-wire or condemned). You could only report on what you find along with reg numbers. But that is not my point. How can anyone satisfy points 1 and 2?

 

[telectrix]

even if you suspect that an installation was not quite up to the regs. at the time, it's only a C3 code if it's "safe for continued use".

 

[Andy78]

Yes but you should not give advice in a EICR (IE - requires re-wire or condemned). You could only report on what you find along with reg numbers. But that is not my point. How can anyone satisfy points 1 and 2?

I'm sorry I didn't know this thread was purporting to EICR specifically. You make judgements based on your experience, technical knowledge, information gleaned from the client, previous records, and common sense.

 

[Anthony S]

Its appears to me that those who doubt their own ability and knowledge try to pull the stroke of bringing everything to the latest edition to cover all the angles or they just want to extract extra money from the customer.

 

[spark 68]

People carrying out I&T should have above average electrical skill and knowledge, not just to current standards/regulations, just because an installation does not meet current regulations does not mean that it should be condemned necessarily as unsafe for continued use.

This is the jist given in GN3, do you think the IET is going to say that their previous advice and regs are dangerous ?, that would open them up to possible legal action IMO.

 

[Silly Sausage]

It may be easier, but may also amount to fraud depending on what you say and how you say it to the customer. Any work that is carried out unnecessarily whilst telling the customer it is necessary is clearly misleading at best and unlawful at worst.

No wonder rail travel is so damned expensive, it's all this unnecessary work being carried out!

 

[trev]

For crying out loud! It's not "a lot out there who claim that installations don't have to be brought up to current regs" it's fact! There's notes on how to carry out an EICR, read them.
On the form itself, there's a question "estimated age of installation" if someone can't make an educated guess at the age of it should they really be carrying out EICRs?
There's a very fine line between giving advice to a customer and telling them that they need to do X Y and Z to bring their installations up to compliance with current regs "Because that's illegal that is mate"

 

[Deleted member 72666]

Oh come on! Are you telling us you can't really tell the approximate age of an installation? There's plenty of clues if you look hard enough!

 

[telectrix]

to be fair to OP, though, alterations could have been made to a 15th ed. installation after the introduction of 16th. think it's time to revert to the 15th. 4mm gn/y cable attached to the bog chain and the metal frame windows.

 

[Guest125]

Its appears to me that those who doubt their own ability and knowledge try to pull the stroke of bringing everything to the latest edition to cover all the angles or they just want to extract extra money from the customer.

I am not asking that.

How would you ascertain points 1 & 2 in the OP?

 

[Guest125]

People carrying out I&T should have above average electrical skill and knowledge, not just to current standards/regulations, just because an installation does not meet current regulations does not mean that it should be condemned necessarily as unsafe for continued use.

This is the jist given in GN3, do you think the IET is going to say that their previous advice and regs are dangerous ?, that would open them up to possible legal action IMO.

Agreed - How would you answer points 1 & 2 above?

 

[Guest125]

For crying out loud! It's not "a lot out there who claim that installations don't have to be brought up to current regs" it's fact! There's notes on how to carry out an EICR, read them.
On the form itself, there's a question "estimated age of installation" if someone can't make an educated guess at the age of it should they really be carrying out EICRs?
There's a very fine line between giving advice to a customer and telling them that they need to do X Y and Z to bring their installations up to compliance with current regs "Because that's illegal that is mate"

We all know that.

How could you be sure to answer point 1 & 2 with a little accuracy without the knowledge as I said. I am not saying anything is right or wrong I would just like someone to convince me with a fact. Not just someone saying "this is a fact mate" but showing me.

I do not listen to sparks that say "this is how it is done' without backing it up.

 

[Guest125]

Oh come on! Are you telling us you can't really tell the approximate age of an installation? There's plenty of clues if you look hard enough!

We all give it our best guess but it is just this. And could be easily within a 10 year window in which 3 amendments could have been released. So how could you answer questions 1 & 2 in the OP?