C3s putting you in harms way ??

[UNG]

The E&WR 1989 do not actually apply to dwellings they are concerned with places of work.

They do apply when you are doing an EICR because you are at work, that was one of the things that was reinforced continually throughout the course when I did the 2391 many years ago, and is one of the regular questions that appears in the exam

 

[Mike Johnson]

Just in case, even if you are doing voluntary work you are still subject to the HSAWA.

 

[westward10]

They do apply when you are doing an EICR because you are at work, that was one of the things that was reinforced continually throughout the course when I did the 2391 many years ago, and is one of the regular questions that appears in the exam

It is the Building and its usage it does not involve dwellings the fact you are working there is not relevant

 

[Dartlec]

My guess is that if/when a landlord is fined under the new regulations (since that is the harshest penalty available), then it will likely be the ones that would clearly and obviously fail any EICR that was ever done anyway, so the question will probably be moot and won't come down to the minutiae of whether things were C2 or C3, but whether C1s were present...

HSE can and will still go after electricians who fake results, when something awful happens (Such as in the Emma Shaw case), but that will be under existing legislation and a case where "reasonable" judgement is given would probably not get that far.

Until and unless the bodies involved come together and put out better guidance or more specific guidance for rented properties, then following the Best Practise Guide (or justifying departures from it based on experience or evidence) has to be the best way to ensure there is no comeback on the Inspector, financial or otherwise.

 

[timhoward]

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the guidance for landlords regarding the new law on the gov.uk website directly references the best practise guide - so it would be hard for any prosecutor to argue an inspector should have done anything other than follow it.

Guide for landlords: electrical safety standards in the private rented sector

www.gov.uk

 

[Soi disant]

Thanks for digging out the wording.
I didn't actually mean to suggest a conflict in that sense. More querying how one relates to the other. If the law says "electrical safety standards are met" with electrical saftey standards being defined as BS7671, I can't decide if that means it needs to meet BS7671 in all regards as per a new installation or if it allows BS7671's own provisions for older installations.
Maybe I'm over thinking it....again!

You may be over-thinking it. That bit in the Introduction says that non-compliant installations do not have to be upgraded. It does not say that existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the regulations are deemed to comply with this edition if they are not unsafe for continued use.

What has yet to be determined by a court ruling is whether the law requiring that "electrical safety standards are met" means that an existing installation has to comply with every aspect of BS 7671:2018 or only some, and if the latter, which.

A consensus seems to have emerged that it must have no non-compliances coded as C1 or C2. Superficially reasonable, if we think it reasonable to enshrine in law the can of worms which is the significantly indeterminate nature of many C2-or-C3 decisions ¹ .

But, and this is where you may be under-thinking it, there is no basis in fact for any determination based on C1/C2/C3. None whatsoever.

The lawmakers have done a truly abysmal job. Leaving aside the is-it-a-C2-or-a-C3 issue, they could have required landlords to have an EICR carried out which complied with the current edition of the Wiring Regulations (i.e. the carrying out of the EICR had to be in accordance, not the installation) and that any C1 or C2 conditions be rectified within x days and a new EICR done.

But they didn't. What they did was unbelievable, really. (Or is it, sadly, all too believable?)

They required that private landlords must ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises are occupied under a specified tenancy.

And they defined "electrical safety standards" as "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".

So, what are those "standards"? What, exactly, does the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018 actually require?

The BS standard says "The Regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations."

Nothing, nothing at all, about them applying to existing installations where no additions or alterations are being done. They apply only to the activities of designing, erecting and verifying new installations or designing, erecting and verifying additions and alterations to existing ones.

Then, how old is the installation? Because only installations designed after 31st December 2018 are to comply with the eighteenth edition - it says so quite clearly. These are the requirements which the 18th edition imposes on installations designed before that date:

1. None
2. Zip
3. None
4. Nothing
5. Nada
6. SFA
7. All of the above.

And oh how I would love it if a judge, who was pedantic even by the standards of judges, and who was utterly p'd off with the egregious incompetence of government law writers, and who had been having a bad week anyway even before his piles started giving him gyp were to say (in suitable judge-language)

"You know what? In the matter of The Crown vs Mr. Hapless Landlord I find that the law does not require that his property meet any particular electrical standards. Case dismissed."

Because I too am utterly p'd off with the egregious incompetence of people whose salaries I pay with my taxes.





¹ As an aside, it isn't always a case of "don't be ridiculous, it's a C3 at best, no way it's a C2". I was recently looking at a landlords report, where the property had a Wylex standard, and a couple of the fuse carrier backplates were missing their screws, so if someone pulled a fuse to repair it, possibly by torch or flickering candle light, it would be a case of "oh woops there's all this IP00 live metalwork".

He gave it a C2 - not sure I wouldn't have preferred a C1.

Still - I suppose it balanced out the C3 he gave for accessories having paint on them.

 

[telectrix]

a couple of the fuse carrier backplates were missing their screws, so if someone pulled a fuse to repair it, possibly by torch or flickering candle light, it would be a case of "oh woops there's all this IP00 live metalwork".

He gave it a C2 - not sure I wouldn't have preferred a C1.

I agree with a C2 on that, potential danger, as something else has to happen to make it dangerous. i.e. pulling a fuseholder out.

 

[Mike Johnson]

And the prize for the longest post on this thread goes too:

 

[Lister1987]

a couple of the fuse carrier backplates were missing their screws, so if someone pulled a fuse to repair it, possibly by torch or flickering candle light, it would be a case of "oh woops there's all this IP00 live metalwork".

He gave it a C2 - not sure I wouldn't have preferred a C1.

I agree with a C2 on that, potential danger, as something else has to happen to make it dangerous. i.e. pulling a fuseholder out.

I'd C1 is on the basis that I can see it, I can touch, it will kill me now. I can't C2 it because it is already dangerous without further actions; exposed live parts should be a C1 every day of the week, the definition tells you all you need to know; Danger Present, Requires immediate attention.

The fact these exposed live parts as squirreled away somewhere (under stairs, kitchen cupboard [60-70s houses, before we started putting DNO kit outside]) shouldn't be seen as a reason for C2, quite the opposite; how many times have you seen fuseboards/intakes with a metric ton of stuff in the same area? It just takes a momentary lapse and you'll get zapped.

 

[telectrix]

I'd C1 is on the basis that I can see it, I can touch, it will kill me now. I can't C2 it because it is already dangerous without further actions; exposed live parts should be a C1 every day of the week, the definition tells you all you need to know; Danger Present, Requires immediate attention.

The fact these exposed live parts as squirreled away somewhere (under stairs, kitchen cupboard [60-70s houses, before we started putting DNO kit outside]) shouldn't be seen as a reason for C2, quite the opposite; how many times have you seen fuseboards/intakes with a metric ton of stuff in the same area? It just takes a momentary lapse and you'll get zapped.

but those live parts are not exposed/touchable when the fuse is in position. i stick with my C2.

 

[Lister1987]

but those live parts are not exposed/touchable when the fuse is in position. i stick with my C2.

Apologies Tel, I read it as they were. In my defence I've got a nic big dental abscess on the god

 

[old man sparky]

All these posts, and like I said, all because the bloody pubs are shut.

 

[old man sparky]

but those live parts are not exposed/touchable when the fuse is in position. i stick with my C2.

Either way it fails so has to be sorted C1 or C2. The issues only really begin if a C2 is coded C3, and thats where you can get conflicts of opinion that do effect the results of the EICR ie satisfactory or unsatisfactory or as landlords see it pass card or fail card.

 

[Soi disant]

The issues only really begin if a C2 is coded C3

And vice-versa.

 

[old man sparky]

And vice-versa.

Not really.
If a Code 2 is rated as a Code 3. Your giving a potentially dangerous situation a lesser code. A code 3 as a code 2 whilst over the top, is not a danger. That's why I feel the C2 and C3 parameters need to be conclusive rather than down to an opinion.

 

[brianmoooore]

A C2 which should be a C3 is very much a danger - to the landlord's wallet.

 

[UNG]

Plastic consumer units. Another one !
You code 3 it, or no code required.
2 years later main switch overheats, goes up in smoke, and your being asked why you didn't fail the install until the fitting of a metal c/u had been carried out.

I have never understood why or when "e.g. metal" became "must be metal" and the alternatives have been overlooked, dismissed or ignored, I wonder how many plastic CU's that are in a perfectly suitable fire rated enclosure have been miss coded. Then again how many would recognise if the cupboard the CU was located in was fire lined to a ½ or 1 hour rating
If the main switch overheats 2 years after inspection then it was probably incorrectly installed or the inspection didn't include checking the security / tightness of the terminals and putting it in a metal CU is not going to stop that problem of it overheating

Again should an EICR include some elements of a PPM as well as the inspection, test and certification

 

[Soi disant]

2 years later main switch overheats, goes up in smoke, and your being asked why you didn't fail the install until the fitting of a metal c/u had been carried out.

How about because the Wiring Regulations, and hence the law, do not mandate it?

Or because the fact that at the time you did the inspection plastic CUs could still be installed in offices, shops, schools, pubs, restaurants, care homes, indicated to you that plastic CUs did not need to be replaced as a matter of urgency?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Does the legislation say "Metal" or "Flame proof" or even "Flame retardant"? Haven't got my copy to hand.

 

[UNG]

How about because the Wiring Regulations, and hence the law, do not mandate it?

The grey area is the PRS and how it appears to mandate compliance with the 18th edition

Or because the fact that at the time you did the inspection plastic CUs could still be installed in offices, shops, schools, pubs, restaurants, care homes, indicated to you that plastic CUs did not need to be replaced as a matter of urgency?

Nothing to stop them being installed in domestic now if they are non combustible or in a fire rated enclosure