EICR's and previous editions of Regs

[ChrisElectrical88]

You clearly shouldn't do a EICR to the current regs. If the installation complys to the regulations in place when it was tested then an improvement can be advised as a C3. However as stated above something which was in those regs which is clearly dangerous can be advised as a C2.

So in schools where nearly all stairwells are wired in PVC conduit with no fire resistant fixings, your going to pull that as a C2? In factory's where they have 200+ sockets not RCD protected your going to C2 that? In Mrs Jones 2006 rewired house your going to tell her that she needs a new dist board cause it's made from a combustible material and her downstairs lighting circuit is less that 50mm into the building fabric.

As stated thing that are dangerous can be added as a C2. EFLI values I agree on, RCD protection in special locations and for outdoor equipment, fire resistant spotlights etc in some cases. But for everything to be tested as c2ed up to the current regs you having a laugh.... And your going to be smashing in a serious amount of earth rods from 2019 onwards

 

[Des 56]

You test and inspect to determine if an installation is safe for continued use
The test and inspection is carried out with comparison to current regulations

What was once considered safe doesn't suddenly become unsafe because its of a previous edition
Relevant codes can be used which should reflect those changes to regulations since the original installation date are noted

All this talf about potentially millions of unsatisfactory installations (that are not new) is clearly wrong
Its probably why experience of older installations can be essential for the inspector to have

 

[Lee42]

I have done 7 eicr this month.
Some passed, some failed. You can only test the installation to the current regs. If it's an installation from the 16th edition it doesn't mean it's going to fail. The most common c2 I write down is no supplementry bonding in bathrooms without rcd protection. No rcd protection on sockets intended for use outdoors and not safety cutout on immersion heaters. The rest for eg, no identification of conductors, no rcd protection, incorrect fire rating of cu would be wrote as c3.
I don't think I have ever wrote a c1, eg live connection on show or no blanks in cu. Will normally sort them out there and then

 

[suffolkspark]

So in schools where nearly all stairwells are wired in PVC conduit with no fire resistant fixings, your going to pull that as a C2? In factory's where they have 200+ sockets not RCD protected your going to C2 that? In Mrs Jones 2006 rewired house your going to tell her that she needs a new dist board cause it's made from a combustible material and her downstairs lighting circuit is less that 50mm into the building fabric.

As stated thing that are dangerous can be added as a C2. EFLI values I agree on, RCD protection in special locations and for outdoor equipment, fire resistant spotlights etc in some cases. But for everything to be tested as c2ed up to the current regs you having a laugh.... And your going to be smashing in a serious amount of earth rods from 2019 onwards

Firstly... Dude where have I said you C2 all those things? I reread my post and think its pretty clear I said you either C2 or C3 them as appropriate? maybe you got the wrong end of the stick?

Secondly... I would C3 all of your examples.

Thirdly... It looks like we might ALL be smashing in a serious amount of earth rods from 2019 onwards.

 

[davesparks]

you carry out an eicr in accordance with current version of bs7671, it's as simple as that.

You cannot code something purely on the basis that if no longer complies with the current version. a good example of this is the old wiring colours, it does not comply now but it warrants no code.

Anything which is immediately dangerous, potentially dangerous or an improvement can be recommended for safety gets the appropriate code.

Yes this does lead to a situation where a job done yesterday may be coded as improvement recommended tomorrow, but there has to a be a time when the change occurs, that is the nature of progress.

 

[davesparks]

So in schools where nearly all stairwells are wired in PVC conduit with no fire resistant fixings, your going to pull that as a C2? In factory's where they have 200+ sockets not RCD protected your going to C2 that? In Mrs Jones 2006 rewired house your going to tell her that she needs a new dist board cause it's made from a combustible material and her downstairs lighting circuit is less that 50mm into the building fabric.

Yes if that is what the current regulations require, although i think that the situations you describe are more likely to be C3 than C2.

It doesn't matter whether it is 1 socket or 200, if they don't comply then they don't comply and must be coded accordingly.

 

[westward10]

The sockets comply, it is the level of circuit protection which makes so many to soil their pants

 

[MerlinGremlin]

It's Inspection and Test not Test and Inspect! Just saying.

 

[Devonchris]

Thanks for the response.

Whilst, on the face of it, there appears to be a lack of consensus, actually most seem to agree that C3 is appropriate for items not meeting current Regs.

I suppose it's a bit like taking a car for an MOT. There are certain safety standards that all cars must pass. However later models must have certain additional features fitted and working (seat belts, air bags etc.) Older models without these features will still pass but are not as safe.

With regards to which Regs you are testing to, I don't suppose it really matters. Some will see RCDs (for instance) as a bonus, others as a omission. If it's given a C3 with comments to that effect then it's the same outcome.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

As has been said already, the inspection should be conducted in accordance with the current Regulations.
What some people seem to forget, is that the current Regulations stipulate, that something which complied with the Regulations in force at the time of construction is not necessarily unsafe because it no longer complies.
People should also take note, that the current Regulations allow installations to be constructed to earlier versions if they were designed when those earlier versions were in force.
For example, the Athelete's village for the Olympics.
Construction completed end of March 2015, constructed to the 16th edition.