Applying regs retrospectively

[spark 68]

I find you can tell fairly quickly on an EICR if there has been alterations, usually the older wiring although installed to an earlier edition is usually spot on and in good condition, installed properly with usually good quality components, it is the additions that are shyte and rarely comply to any known standard

 

[Guest125]

Try reading up on the subject and you might see that I'm right, just like the bit about socket heights on rewires.
However, as you say above. There are lots of people on here that I don't want to listen to and they're all on my ignore list. You just joined it.

I never said that you were not correct. I just wanted some evidence. If you cannot provide it then I would ignore it too.

 

[Andy78]

I never said that you were not correct. I just wanted some evidence. If you cannot provide it then I would ignore it too.

See my post #18 for where to get evidence for this.

 

[Guest125]

simple answer is I don't need to know if it was falsely installed to the wrong version of the regs at the time it was installed... You're getting carried away.

You don't need to go around assuming everything is a lie, even if it is, you didn't do it!!

you're getting carried away.

In fact I don't see the point of this thread its a bit silly.

You don't follow me. Say you guess an installation date of between 1985 - 1995. There are quite a few changes in that time. How can you be sure what version of the regs this installation is installed to?

 

[Guest125]

UKESrail

You seem to think that your points 1 and 2 from your OP need to be justified in order for the regs not to be applied retrospectively. They don't.

An EICR is an asessment of the installation in it's current state with regards to electrical safety and suitability for continued use. You do not need to know the edition of the regs the installation was designed to in order to do this.

With regards to the application of the regs not being retrospective being a fact, then I can confirm it is a fact. So can BS7671 if you look in the introduction.

No I do not. What I am saying is you need to be very sure of when the installation was installed and also the date of the regs to be sure if the installation was installed correctly or not. If you see a 2.5mm main earth bond on the water. How do you know if that was not an installation done in 1970 (correctly) or 1980 (incorrectly)? Dates are approximate.

 

[spark 68]

Well 2.5mm would be post-metrication, 1970 you say ?

 

[Guest125]

Well 2.5mm would be post-metrication, 1970 you say ?

Showing you age - and mine ;-)

 

[HandySparks]

No I do not. What I am saying is you need to be very sure of when the installation was installed and also the date of the regs to be sure if the installation was installed correctly or not. If you see a 2.5mm main earth bond on the water. How do you know if that was not an installation done in 1970 (correctly) or 1980 (incorrectly)? Dates are approximate.

In compiling an EICR, what matters is not whether is was 'correct' or 'incorrect' to the regs at the time, it's whether, in your professional opinion, it's acceptably safe now.

If you're producing an EIC for work you've just done then, of course, compliance with the regs applicable at the time is important.

 

[spark 68]

Showing you age - and mine ;-)

I couldn't possibly comment

 

[Andy78]

No I do not. What I am saying is you need to be very sure of when the installation was installed and also the date of the regs to be sure if the installation was installed correctly or not. If you see a 2.5mm main earth bond on the water. How do you know if that was not an installation done in 1970 (correctly) or 1980 (incorrectly)? Dates are approximate.

No you don't. I'm sorry but all the answers to your misguided perspective have been given in this thread. It's like you are not reading the responses. You need to research the fundamental requirements of EICR if you are still confused.

 

[Guest125]

In compiling an EICR, what matters is not whether is was 'correct' or 'incorrect' to the regs at the time, it's whether, in your professional opinion, it's acceptably safe now.

If you're producing an EIC for work you've just done then, of course, compliance with the regs applicable at the time is important.

I completely agree with you. It is some people on here keep telling me "if it was ok when it was installed then you cannot put it on a report"

This I disagree with. I think that we should be reporting to the CURRENT regs and not leaving things off because they were "designed and installed to the 16th".

To be clear. When we compile a report we use whatever the current standards are as our benchmark and all recommendations are made to the current regulations.

 

[Guest125]

No you don't. I'm sorry but all the answers to your misguided perspective have been given in this thread. It's like you are not reading the responses. You need to research the fundamental requirements of EICR if you are still confused.

I cannot understand how anyone can say 'it was installed to the 16th so it is ok' unless KNOWING when that installation was completed.

That is my only point. Why do you need to answer like that?

 

[Anthony S]

I am not asking that.

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

You asked this question

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.

and I answered it because for what ever the reasons might be, its you who would find it easier to bring the installation up to current standards.

 

[HandySparks]

I completely agree with you. It is some people on here keep telling me "if it was ok when it was installed then you cannot put it on a report"

This I disagree with. I think that we should be reporting to the CURRENT regs and not leaving things off because they were "designed and installed to the 16th".

To be clear. When we compile a report we use whatever the current standards are as our benchmark and all recommendations are made to the current regulations.

Not quite what I meant. Or perhaps we have different standards.

For example, if there's no RCD protection for T&E cables buried in the plaster in domestic premises, I would not mark that as unsatisfactory on an EICR, even though it's a requirement of the current regs.

If I found a 13A socket for use outside with no RCD, then I'd say unsatisfactory.

You need to make a judgement, rather than applying all the current regs.

Take a look at the guidance on the Electrical Safety First website:
Electrical Safety First

Best Practice Guide No. 4
Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety First

 

[7029 dave]

FYI, take heed of the introduction, that will answer your question

 

[Guest125]

You asked this question

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.

and I answered it because for what ever the reasons might be, its you who would find it easier to bring the installation up to current standards.

That is not true. Network Rail like to have clean reports. Free from any recommendations.

 

[D Skelton]

Showing you age - and mine ;-)

Huh?

You're in your early thirties aren't you?!

 

[Guest125]

FYI, take heed of the introduction, that will answer your question

Yes I have that. And it does. All installations should be tested to the CURRENT regs. As it says in the introduction. Although this does not mean that and 'issues' raised make the installation unsafe.

 

[Guest125]

Huh?

You're in your early thirties aren't you?!

Yes mate.

 

[ImpededLoop]

It's all very well to want to bring everything up to the latest regs, but it's often not justifiable.

For instance, one of the buildings that I was responsible for in my previous job was a ten story tower block. It was originally constructed in the 1960's for academic use. There had been a multitude of changes made over 50 years. Some bits were original, others brand new.

It would have been impossible both operationally and financially to bring the whole installation up to 17th standards. We had to manage what was installed and make judgements on what was safe for continued use and what wasn't.

The principle is the same whatever size the installation is. Lots of things are not perfect or are untidy or even rough, but we have to make a judgment as to whether they are safe for continued use.