EICR - Applying regs retrospectively

[timhoward]

Then to add a note to counter that note, the BPG4 quoted above would disagree, recommending only a C3.

The further fun fact is that Napit's logo is on BPG4. So they endorse the best practise guide, then publish their own guide which sometimes has different advice.

I've been in Napit 4 years now and rather to my surprise they have never referred me to their Code Breakers book in any way shape or form or tried to sell me one. It's certainly never been described as a set of official guidelines.

I clarified with my assessor 3 years ago that following BPG4 is perfectly valid, and he stated that it's my opinion as the professionally insured person that counts.

It would be interesting to hear back what the exact rationale for RCD protection is.

 

[Rockingit]

However an EICR is carried out to current regulations not the regulations that were applicable to the original installation.

One of the reasons an EICR is carried out is to identify things which, due to changes in regulations/technology/our understanding of what is safe, can be improved or need to be improved.

Anything which does not comply but would not offer any appreciable safety improvement if it was changed to make it compliant should not be coded on an EICR.
However anything which does not comply and changing it would improve safety should be coded, regardless of whether it complied at the time of installation.

The IET sum up this best themselves, right at the first page of GN3: "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with the current edition in every respect but this does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or that they require upgrading. The person or persons carrying out the inspection and testing of such an installation must decide whether the installation is safe for continued use.... The inspector must determine whether any shortcomings are classified as safety issues or recommendations for improvement."

So not necessarily in full agreement with you, but close.

What does become very clear very quickly is that both Napit and the NICEIC must assume a very low base level of skill and judgment on the part of their electricians / inspectors as most of these suggested codings blah blah blah are nothing more than arse cover against litigation.

Every time you put a code against 'cables buried less than...' it's a guess. You've no actual idea what's behind the plaster unless you dig it off the wall - and in doing so would be in breach of 641.4 and 651.2 anyway. Even if there is a buried cable, it's still a judgment call if it poses an actual risk or not - whether commercial or domestic.

We need to remember the fundamental principles behind the codes we use -
1= I'm amazed nobody is dead yet
2= Somebody is likely to die if it continues
3= Not the best, needs looking at but isn't going to harm anyone.

They are not sales codes to generate work!!!!!!

It also brings - again - into question the value of 2391 anymore. When I sat mine, years ago, it was the old one. The hard one, where a pre-existing requirement/assumption was that it was for skilled and experienced electricians already of several years standing who knew their stuff. From what I can make out about the new one, my dog could pass it. OK, maybe not the dog, but the cat would definitely be in with a chance (something about operating a mouse..)

 

[buzzlightyear]

Never employ someone to do an EICR who has a Guide in their back pocket

At he end of the day has long making it safe for those who are involed does not make them a bad person. It's their call not you or me. But the inspector who is testing.

 

[pc1966]

My take on it:

We need to remember the fundamental principles behind the codes we use -
1= I'm amazed nobody is dead yet

It's alive Jim! However, you might not be soon.

2= Somebody is likely to die if it continues

One fault from above.

3= Not the best, needs looking at but isn't going to harm anyone.

Two or more faults

 

[richy3333]

I’d be more concerned about those blanking clips on the main CU.