Inspection & testing pass/fail

[LPM]

Hi everyone,

just for the general discussion. I found a bit of a grey area when you issue certificate. Would you issue satisfactory certificate if installation complies with i.e. 16th edition but not the 17th?

 

[Guest55]

if no other potentially dangerous defects are found , then yes

 

[telectrix]

Re: Inspection & testing pass/fail

you would code non compliance with 17th as a C3, which is a satisfactory as long as there are no immediate or potential dangers.

- - - Updated - - -

beaten by the troll. :81:

 

[Octopus]

Agree with both of the above. Sparks giving unsatisfactory to older installations just becasuee they were installed prior to the 17th ed don't help our professional cause.

 

[telectrix]

Re: Inspection & testing pass/fail

or give unbonded studwork a C1..... a 32A MCB on a 2.5mm RFC a C2.

- - - Updated - - -

or give unbonded studwork a C1..... a 32A MCB on a 2.5mm RFC a C2.

 

[LPM]

Ok so simple question, why then 17th edition was released if 16th was safe enough ? Also how could you give satisfactory cert if its non compliance with existing 7671. I would appreciate to make a note that general/overall condition is in good order but would still issue unsatisfactory cert.

 

[Sintra]

When you do an EICR you can't give it unsatisfactory if it complies to the version of the regs that it was wired to. All you can do is C3 anything that doesn't meet the current regs. So for example an installation done in 1982 to the 15th edition with no deviations from those standards is still satisfactory.

 

[Rampantchilli]

diy'er?
home owner disgruntled with EICR?

 

[chrish_1977]

Inspection & testing pass/fail

The Inspection is not retrospective, so if it was installed under the 16 th, and it meets the regs for that then, all you can do is make notes to bring it to the 17th, it's no less safe, just doesn't meet current regs

 

[Octopus]

Ok so simple question, why then 17th edition was released if 16th was safe enough ? Also how could you give satisfactory cert if its non compliance with existing 7671. I would appreciate to make a note that general/overall condition is in good order but would still issue unsatisfactory cert.

Would you buy a car without seat belts, airbags and side protection - I wouldn't, so regs updates are about progress!

 

[telectrix]

more about the guys at IET needing new siuts and computers every 3 years

 

[LPM]

When you do an EICR you can't give it unsatisfactory if it complies to the version of the regs that it was wired to. All you can do is C3 anything that doesn't meet the current regs. So for example an installation done in 1982 to the 15th edition with no deviations from those standards is still satisfactory.

So you doing periodic as a safety check and issu satisfactory certificate cause it complies with 15th edition and it is safe while 17th edition released so far. Something goes wrong and the reason of that would be one of the reasons why they amended 15th edition up to 17th and will come back to you saying you said it is safe. So what excuse you will say? I made a note that it complies with 15th edition put my signature that it is safe and you let landlord to get away for 5 years without upgrading installation to current standard which is safe enough for nowadays. I think note is not good enough because people do not understand 15th or 17th ed they only want to get clean and satisfactory cert. All techs moving and they have to maintain and upgrade their electrics as we do maintain our cars etc. It's like I said probably better to write that installation in good order but needs bringing up to standard rather to issue satisfactory.

 

[LPM]

Re: Inspection & testing pass/fail

The Inspection is not retrospective, so if it was installed under the 16 th, and it meets the regs for that then, all you can do is make notes to bring it to the 17th, it's no less safe, just doesn't meet current regs

If it is no less safe why would you make amendments?

 

[Plonker 3]

To make it safer.

 

[telectrix]

the whole point of an EICR is to " determine whether or not the installation is fit for continued use". would you take a car off the road just because it didn't have airbags and ABS?

 

[Sintra]

So you doing periodic as a safety check and issu satisfactory certificate cause it complies with 15th edition and it is safe while 17th edition released so far. Something goes wrong and the reason of that would be one of the reasons why they amended 15th edition up to 17th and will come back to you saying you said it is safe. So what excuse you will say? I made a note that it complies with 15th edition put my signature that it is safe and you let landlord to get away for 5 years without upgrading installation to current standard which is safe enough for nowadays. I think note is not good enough because people do not understand 15th or 17th ed they only want to get clean and satisfactory cert. All techs moving and they have to maintain and upgrade their electrics as we do maintain our cars etc. It's like I said probably better to write that installation in good order but needs bringing up to standard rather to issue satisfactory.

People that decide that an installation is unsatisfactory just because it doesn't comply to the 17th IMO are incorrect. Most times it is scaremongering to get some remidial works.

 

[a1guvner]

When you carry out an EICR we are assessing against the current standards of BS7671 as amended, and as long as there were no C1 or C2 i would say satisfactory and just list your recommendations and obs make the client aware of what is required to comply with the 17th with your C3

 

[LPM]

To make it safer.

so you disagree with yourself then which means its not safe enough if it could be more safer

 

[LPM]

People that decide that an installation is unsatisfactory just because it doesn't comply to the 17th IMO are incorrect. Most times it is scaremongering to get some remidial works.

Yes but basically by giving satisfactory cert just to help people avoid remidials is not right, also you put your signature on it.

 

[LPM]

When you carry out an EICR we are assessing against the current standards of BS7671 as amended, and as long as there were no C1 or C2 i would say satisfactory and just list your recommendations and obs make the client aware of what is required to comply with the 17th with your C3

why would you leave C3 while to rectify C3's usually cost a tiny amount to the client and after 5 years have more than those C3's you left?

 

[LPM]

the whole point of an EICR is to " determine whether or not the installation is fit for continued use". would you take a car off the road just because it didn't have airbags and ABS?

I think it depends on what conditions you will have to drive. If it's snowy and you drive very fast I bet you would take it off the road

 

[ifindoubtdont]

A 1901 Dion Boulton doesn't have seat belts fitted, yet if everything works correctly and is safe it will pass an MOT. The fitting of seat belts is not retrospective, same with the Regs.

 

[Geoffsd]

Rewire and new CU only way out, then.

When was the last time you heard of a fuse not working?

 

[a1guvner]

I think you could find it could be quite costly to upgrade from old editions to current, at the end of the day we are engaged to provide an insight into the standard of the system not to provide a quick fix, that is up to the client

 

[Rampantchilli]

why would you leave C3 while to rectify C3's usually cost a tiny amount to the client and after 5 years have more than those C3's you left?

because firstly it is not our job to force people to have work done that they don't want doing, wether it is safe to leave as is or not. Secondly an EICR is a statement of current condition, so you would list all issues and the C1,2,3 coding directs the customer to the severity of those issues. ALL C1,2 issues would require an unsatisfactory result, a C3 would not, although carrying out the recommended work would improve the general safety of the installation. But at no point does the carrying out of an EICR demand that you or the customer carry out any work.

if you were to carry out a EICR and place only C3 codes against anything you found, then say it is unsatisfactory, you would be in the wrong and liable to some form of prosecution.
Right or wrong the ESC and the IET have deemed this to be the case, and in your OP the remedial work required to bring upto 17th from 16th would be fairly minimal to quite costly dependant on the installation requirements, say maybe 4 square D rcbo's at £50 a pop plus bonding perhaps.

and you do not sign to say " it is safe" you sign to say that you have tested the installation and made an assessment based on that inspection and testing procedure.

this thread seems like it could of been started by DC

 

[Rampantchilli]

A 1901 Dion Boulton doesn't have seat belts fitted, yet if everything works correctly and is safe it will pass an MOT. The fitting of seat belts is not retrospective, same with the Regs.

Id actually doubt it would need an MOT, as there would be nothing on it to test

 

[Octopus]

Back to the OP, are you a sparky or a homeowner who has had a EICR done?

 

[LPM]

because firstly it is not our job to force people to have work done that they don't want doing, wether it is safe to leave as is or not. Secondly an EICR is a statement of current condition, so you would list all issues and the C1,2,3 coding directs the customer to the severity of those issues. ALL C1,2 issues would require an unsatisfactory result, a C3 would not, although carrying out the recommended work would improve the general safety of the installation. But at no point does the carrying out of an EICR demand that you or the customer carry out any work.

if you were to carry out a EICR and place only C3 codes against anything you found, then say it is unsatisfactory, you would be in the wrong and liable to some form of prosecution.
Right or wrong the ESC and the IET have deemed this to be the case, and in your OP the remedial work required to bring upto 17th from 16th would be fairly minimal to quite costly dependant on the installation requirements, say maybe 4 square D rcbo's at £50 a pop plus bonding perhaps.

and you do not sign to say " it is safe" you sign to say that you have tested the installation and made an assessment based on that inspection and testing procedure.

this thread seems like it could of been started by DC

We are not forcing people to do any remidials cause EICR doesn't state that client must do any work as it is their money and they decide what to do with them as long as they know that this is wrong and you r not covering it with your signature. The other point is that we r not creating rules we just following them. Then you can basically buy cheaper stuff and do installation based on 15th edition and say EIC that they can not force you to buy more expensive materials to make installation safe like it is i.e. 17th ed because 15th edition is safe enough for continuous use.

 

[LPM]

Back to the OP, are you a sparky or a homeowner who has had a EICR done?

I am sparky

 

[LPM]

I just wanna to know other people opinion and discuss about it cause to me it is a bit of a grey area where electricians have their own right to make a last decision when our signatures in use and we have to cover our asses.

 

[Octopus]

I just wanna to know other people opinion and discuss about it cause to me it is a bit of a grey area where electricians have their own right to make a last decision when our signatures in use and we have to cover our asses.

There are members on here, masquerading as sparks but are actually DIYer's looking to us to "arm" them with information so they can pick a fight with their sparkies!

 

[LPM]

There are members on here, masquerading as sparks but are actually DIYer's looking to us to "arm" them with information so they can pick a fight with their sparkies!

Possibly cause I am new here so don't know much about this forum but it looks nice to have a chat with other sparks, it also good as it gives you some clue what others do in same situation.

 

[Octopus]

Possibly cause I am new here so don't know much about this forum but it looks nice to have a chat with other sparks, it also good as it gives you some clue what others do in same situation.

Cool matey.

What type of sparky are you and are you a scheme member?

 

[LPM]

Nic qs

 

[Rampantchilli]

Re: Inspection & testing pass/fail

We are not forcing people to do any remidials cause EICR doesn't state that client must do any work as it is their money and they decide what to do with them as long as they know that this is wrong and you r not covering it with your signature. The other point is that we r not creating rules we just following them. Then you can basically buy cheaper stuff and do installation based on 15th edition and say EIC that they can not force you to buy more expensive materials to make installation safe like it is i.e. 17th ed because 15th edition is safe enough for continuous use.

Doesn't work like that, if you are installing stuff then THAT must comply with 17th, there isn't a get out of jail free card, if customer won't pay correct price, then you don't do the job

- - - Updated - - -

We are not forcing people to do any remidials cause EICR doesn't state that client must do any work as it is their money and they decide what to do with them as long as they know that this is wrong and you r not covering it with your signature. The other point is that we r not creating rules we just following them. Then you can basically buy cheaper stuff and do installation based on 15th edition and say EIC that they can not force you to buy more expensive materials to make installation safe like it is i.e. 17th ed because 15th edition is safe enough for continuous use.

Doesn't work like that, if you are installing stuff then THAT must comply with 17th, there isn't a get out of jail free card, if customer won't pay correct price, then you don't do the job

 

[Sintra]

Yes but basically by giving satisfactory cert just to help people avoid remidials is not right, also you put your signature on it.

I never said it is done to avoid remedials. What I said is if the installation complies to the version of the regs to which it installed and is fit for continued service I will put my signature to it.

 

[Risteard]

Re: Inspection & testing pass/fail

Observations should not be made where (in the Inspector's opinion) the non-compliance does not give rise to danger. So not everything which is non-compliant with BS 7671:2008 (2011) necessarily needs to be mentioned in the Report.

you would code non compliance with 17th as a C3, which is a satisfactory as long as there are no immediate or potential dangers.

- - - Updated - - -

beaten by the troll. :81:

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Ok so simple question, why then 17th edition was released if 16th was safe enough ? Also how could you give satisfactory cert if its non compliance with existing 7671. I would appreciate to make a note that general/overall condition is in good order but would still issue unsatisfactory cert.

Because things get safer and better alledgedly. I assume you are giving an EICR not an Installation certificate. You cant issue an Installation certificate if it doesn't comply with the latest regs, because you are signing to say that it does.

With an EICR you are signing to say that it is safe (or not) for continued use, and it doesn't matter which edition of the regs it was installed to, if it was OK then, and no faults are evident now, then it is still OK. The regs are not retrospective, but with the new EICR you have to code non compliance with the current regs as C3, as you are recommending improvement, recommending being the operative word, you cant force change on them.

Cheers............Howard