Is my Property Electrical Test and Inspection Report Misleading?

[SYKRAPS]

I am in York.

The items in Section G:

1. main bonding to gas/water - code 1
2. no earth sleeving on shower enclosure - code 2
3. No RCD protection on any circuit (is now 17th ed)

Section H:

installation in order, requires items listed to bring upto current regulation

If there is a code 1 the installation is deemed as unsatisfactory unless rectified.

I'm not far away if you want a 2nd opinion mate

 

[Octopus]

411.3.1.1 (final para)
"A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lamp holder having no exposed-conductive parts and suspended from a point."

And your point is?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

First para:
"Exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to a protective conductor under the specific conditions for each type of system earthing as specified in Regulations 411.4 to 6."

411.4.2 final para:
"Each exposed-conductive-part of the installation shall be connected by a protective conductor to the main earthing terminal of the installation, which shall be connected to the earthed point of the power supply system."
411.5.1:
"Every exposed-conductive-part which is to be protected by a single protective device shall be connected, via the main earthing terminal, to a common earth electrode. However, if two or more protective devices are in series, the exposed-conductive-parts may be connected to separate earth electrodes corresponding to each protective device."
411.6.2:
"Exposed-conductive-parts shall be earthed individually, in groups, or collectively."

If there are no exposed-conductive-parts on a circuit, what use would a CPC be?

yep....class 1s are the demon here...

- - - Updated - - -

And your point is?

yep....compliant when installed...

 

[GLENNSPARK]

If there is a code 1 the installation is deemed as unsatisfactory unless rectified.

I'm not far away if you want a 2nd opinion mate

i would have thought that absence of main bonding was a 2....dangerous under fault conditions....still a fail though...

 

[SYKRAPS]

i would have thought that absence of main bonding was a 2....dangerous under fault conditions....still a fail though...

Yes but if the electrician who tested it recorded a code 1 then it is unsatisfactory is the point that I was making, after all who am I to pass judgement on an installation that I have not seen ;-)

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Yes but if the electrician who tested it recorded a code 1 then it is unsatisfactory is the point that I was making, after all who am I to pass judgement on an installation that I have not seen ;-)

ok...no probs syk...

 

[brman]

So to sum it up for the OP. Either the original inspector or the latest electrician has make a mistake.
IF there is no cpc (circuit protective conductor or earth) on the lights then the inspection report should have said so and should not have a size for the cpc or a R1+R2 or Zs figure for that circuit.
IF there is a cpc then the latest spark has make a "mistake".

Assuming there is no cpc then this does not need a rewire. It can be solved in 2 ways...
1) Run a cpc (or new cabling) to the circuit. Ok. that is a partial rewire but shouldn't be costing £2k.
2) Ensure the circuit has RCD protection* and all accessories (switches and lights) are class 2. i.e they are double insulated, not metal.
* I don't think RCD protection strictly has to be added but it does help making it safer so I would recommend it anyway.

As has been said, it might not meet the latest regulations but you don't need to retrospectively update an installation unless it is dangerous.

A couple more points though.
1) It is possible to get a R1+R2 and Zs figure on a report where there is no cpc on part of the circuit. If the circuit has been updated over the years then part of it could be old wiring without a cpc and part newer wiring with a cpc. So a report could contain a R1+R2 for part of the circuit. However it should still clearly state that part of the circuit doesn't have a cpc. The only get-out here for the inspector is that the inspection is on a sampling basis so not all accessories (and hence parts of the circuit) are inspected. He could argue that that is how it was missed although he should have used his experience to spot that sort of thing.

2) Although it has been stated this doesn't need a rewire, the latest spark may have made a sensible judgement that the overall state of the wiring or poor access would make it more cost affective to just do a full rewire rather than waste hours trying to "bodge" the current system. He may also have decided it isn't the sort of work he likes doing so has quoted high to put you off using him (or give him a decent return if he ends up doing it). In this situation I prefer to be honest and just say I don't want to do the work but others work differently.

So us saying "that is too much money for that problem" without actually seeing the problem ourselves isn't really fair. Hence all the comments about getting a 2nd opinion.

Sorry guys, I know I am mostly repeating what has already been said but hopefully this is of some use to the OP.

 

[malcolmsanford]

411.3.1.1 (final para)
"A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lamp holder having no exposed-conductive parts and suspended from a point."

I personally would have gone with regulation 412.2.3.2 and possibly a code 3. if indeed there is no CPC in the lighting circuit.

As stated when this system was installed there was a good chance that it may have been designed to a lot earlier edition, as Spin points out and so should be inspected as such.

For me though if there is no CPC at the lights, and regardless of what type fittings are installed. I would have hope a competent inspector would have had least noted this in the observations section and guided the client as necessary

 

[GLENNSPARK]

So to sum it up for the OP. Either the original inspector or the latest electrician has make a mistake.
IF there is no cpc (circuit protective conductor or earth) on the lights then the inspection report should have said so and should not have a size for the cpc or a R1+R2 or Zs figure for that circuit.
IF there is a cpc then the latest spark has make a "mistake".

Assuming there is no cpc then this does not need a rewire. It can be solved in 2 ways...
1) Run a cpc (or new cabling) to the circuit. Ok. that is a partial rewire but shouldn't be costing £2k.
2) Ensure the circuit has RCD protection* and all accessories (switches and lights) are class 2. i.e they are double insulated, not metal.
* I don't think RCD protection strictly has to be added but it does help making it safer so I would recommend it anyway.

As has been said, it might not meet the latest regulations but you don't need to retrospectively update an installation unless it is dangerous.

A couple more points though.
1) It is possible to get a R1+R2 and Zs figure on a report where there is no cpc on part of the circuit. If the circuit has been updated over the years then part of it could be old wiring without a cpc and part newer wiring with a cpc. So a report could contain a R1+R2 for part of the circuit. However it should still clearly state that part of the circuit doesn't have a cpc. The only get-out here for the inspector is that the inspection is on a sampling basis so not all accessories (and hence parts of the circuit) are inspected. He could argue that that is how it was missed although he should have used his experience to spot that sort of thing.

2) Although it has been stated this doesn't need a rewire, the latest spark may have made a sensible judgement that the overall state of the wiring or poor access would make it more cost affective to just do a full rewire rather than waste hours trying to "bodge" the current system. He may also have decided it isn't the sort of work he likes doing so has quoted high to put you off using him (or give him a decent return if he ends up doing it). In this situation I prefer to be honest and just say I don't want to do the work but others work differently.

So us saying "that is too much money for that problem" without actually seeing the problem ourselves isn't really fair. Hence all the comments about getting a 2nd opinion.

Sorry guys, I know I am mostly repeating what has already been said but hopefully this is of some use to the OP.

you have mentioned sampling here......
well...if i found anomalies and absence of CPCs and general old age.....i wouldn`t just hold it at 10%....would you?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

So to sum it up for the OP. Either the original inspector or the latest electrician has make a mistake.
IF there is no cpc (circuit protective conductor or earth) on the lights then the inspection report should have said so and should not have a size for the cpc or a R1+R2 or Zs figure for that circuit.
IF there is a cpc then the latest spark has make a "mistake".

Assuming there is no cpc then this does not need a rewire. It can be solved in 2 ways...
1) Run a cpc (or new cabling) to the circuit. Ok. that is a partial rewire but shouldn't be costing £2k.
2) Ensure the circuit has RCD protection* and all accessories (switches and lights) are class 2. i.e they are double insulated, not metal.
* I don't think RCD protection strictly has to be added but it does help making it safer so I would recommend it anyway.

As has been said, it might not meet the latest regulations but you don't need to retrospectively update an installation unless it is dangerous.

A couple more points though.
1) It is possible to get a R1+R2 and Zs figure on a report where there is no cpc on part of the circuit. If the circuit has been updated over the years then part of it could be old wiring without a cpc and part newer wiring with a cpc. So a report could contain a R1+R2 for part of the circuit. However it should still clearly state that part of the circuit doesn't have a cpc. The only get-out here for the inspector is that the inspection is on a sampling basis so not all accessories (and hence parts of the circuit) are inspected. He could argue that that is how it was missed although he should have used his experience to spot that sort of thing.

2) Although it has been stated this doesn't need a rewire, the latest spark may have made a sensible judgement that the overall state of the wiring or poor access would make it more cost affective to just do a full rewire rather than waste hours trying to "bodge" the current system. He may also have decided it isn't the sort of work he likes doing so has quoted high to put you off using him (or give him a decent return if he ends up doing it). In this situation I prefer to be honest and just say I don't want to do the work but others work differently.

So us saying "that is too much money for that problem" without actually seeing the problem ourselves isn't really fair. Hence all the comments about getting a 2nd opinion.

Sorry guys, I know I am mostly repeating what has already been said but hopefully this is of some use to the OP.

and how is running a seperate 4mm CPC a bodge?......

 

[brman]

and there was me thinking I was just clarifying things for the the op. I must choose my words more carefully

Agreed, sampling isn't a real excuse. The only slight excuse is if, for example, the bathroom light was the only one without a cpc as it was old wiring and the rest had been replaced. Sampling, even at 1 in 4 could miss that if the bathroom isn't inspected. However most times you should still spot this by the fact the fitting will be older or the fact you would generally inspect a bathroom as part of your sampling as there is more chance it has been messed with etc. But then not everyone is that thorough.....

cpc being a bodge: sorry, poor use of words as I agree that it is perfectly ok. However some electricians (as shown by comments on this forum) don't like cpcs that don't follow the L-N wiring. Hence my comment that some electricians might prefer a rewire rather an just adding a cpc. I am just putting it forward as a possible reason for the "needs a rewire" comment.

EDIT: on the sampling thing I guess what I am saying is that there are a few ways this could have been missed on an inspection.
1) The inspector was incompetent
2) He did things according to the book but was lazy with his inspection, choosing accessories that were easy to access rather than those that were most likely to show faults
3) he was just very unlucky with his sampling.
My bet is on 1 or 2 but I just wanted to point out that 3 was possible so we shouldn't hang him without more proof

 

[SYKRAPS]

But still with a Code 1 on his recommendations in 2010 he deemed it satisfactory by the sound of things, unless the cert acually says unsatisfactory which we do not know.

We need more info from TopCat but he appears to have gone AWOL

 

[BlueToBits]

I personally would have gone with regulation 412.2.3.2 and possibly a code 3. if indeed there is no CPC in the lighting circuit.

As stated when this system was installed there was a good chance that it may have been designed to a lot earlier edition, as Spin points out and so should be inspected as such.

For me though if there is no CPC at the lights, and regardless of what type fittings are installed. I would have hope a competent inspector would have had least noted this in the observations section and guided the client as necessary

Is a standard ceiling rose with an earth terminal class II?

I understood that we should carry out inspections to BS7671 2008 irrespective of age or compliance with earlier regulations, and mention those aspects that were no longer compliant with current regs and code them appropriately with regard to present installation use and condition.
Have I been missing something?

 

[brman]

Is a standard ceiling rose with an earth terminal class II?

I understood that we should carry out inspections to BS7671 2008 irrespective of age or compliance with earlier regulations, and mention those aspects that were no longer compliant with current regs and code them appropriately with regard to present installation use and condition.
Have I been missing something?

Yes, most standard ceiling roses are class II. Assuming the earth terminal is just to allow you to terminate your cables correctly and it doesn't connect to anything internal to the rose/pendant.

Not sure whether you have missed anything or not.
you are testing to both the current regs and those in place when the circuit was installed. Nothing has to be brought up to current regs unless it is dangerous or potentially dangerous (so that is C1 or C2). C3 can be used if not up to current regs but not potentially dangerous, as in the case of a lack of CPC in a Class II lighting circuit. So yes, this should have been on the cert.
However things like old colours, switch lines not identified as a line conductor etc don't get a comment.

 

[BlueToBits]

Yes, most standard ceiling roses are class II. Assuming the earth terminal is just to allow you to terminate your cables correctly and it doesn't connect to anything internal to the rose/pendant.

Not sure whether you have missed anything or not.
you are testing to both the current regs and those in place when the circuit was installed. Nothing has to be brought up to current regs unless it is dangerous or potentially dangerous (so that is C1 or C2). C3 can be used if not up to current regs but not potentially dangerous, as in the case of a lack of CPC in a Class II lighting circuit. So yes, this should have been on the cert.
However things like old colours, switch lines not identified as a line conductor etc don't get a comment.

OK . Does that include the roses that incorporate the earth terminal with the screw fixing hole?
Most (by far) of the 2 wire lighting installations I have seen use galv or painted metal back-boxes with plastic or fibre accessory fixing lugs and no earth terminal. Are these class II also?

I am yet to attend an inspection course so I'm going on experience and what's written in the regs.

If we are testing to 2 or more sets of regs, we would need to have copies and knowledge of these regs. Perhaps easier for the oldies like myself who still have the 14th brown book and all the changes since, but a bit difficult to the newer guys who won't be aware what the old regs are, and therefore can't be expected to be experienced or trained to verify if compliance to old regs is correctly afforded. Indeed it is often difficult to ascertain the exact year & month of installation to apply the regulation version that was current at that time. Surely we should test to only one set of regs? - the current regs BS7671 2008? Anything else makes a nonsense of testing.

I mention incorrect identification of conductors as C3. Is this wrong then?

 

[brman]

OK . Does that include the roses that incorporate the earth terminal with the screw fixing hole?
Most (by far) of the 2 wire lighting installations I have seen use galv or painted metal back-boxes with plastic or fibre accessory fixing lugs and no earth terminal. Are these class II also?

I am yet to attend an inspection course so I'm going on experience and what's written in the regs.

If we are testing to 2 or more sets of regs, we would need to have copies and knowledge of these regs. Perhaps easier for the oldies like myself who still have the 14th brown book and all the changes since, but a bit difficult to the newer guys who won't be aware what the old regs are, and therefore can't be expected to be experienced or trained to verify if compliance to old regs is correctly afforded. Indeed it is often difficult to ascertain the exact year & month of installation to apply the regulation version that was current at that time. Surely we should test to only one set of regs? - the current regs BS7671 2008? Anything else makes a nonsense of testing.

I mention incorrect identification of conductors as C3. Is this wrong then?

not sure on the roses you mention. perhaps a pic might make it clearer or someone who knows what you are referring to could comment?

It is a little confusing when considering what you are testing to but not as much as you might think. I'm not exactly an expert and have only taken a cursory interest in the regs until the 17th edition so I couldn't really tell you what is in what version. However I don't find it too difficult to work out most categories.
The way I look at it i will take a note of anything that does not conform to the latest regs. Then I will look at the list and decide which things are dangerous (mostly exposed live contacts etc, fire hazards etc). These are C1s. Then look at what is potentially dangerous. ie. would be dangerous if there was a fault. So that would be things like poor earthing, bonding, no cpcs on class 1 equipment, no RCD on a TT system etc. They are C2s. The rest are either C3 or not a problem. C3 means improvement recommended so implies something you would like to see sorted out, even if it is not potentially dangerous. So that is things like lack of RCDs protection sockets or cables, lack of certain notices and perhaps things like sockets mounted in a way that could stress cables.
What are left are things that might not be according to the latest regs but aren't going to cause any problems. They don't get coded at all.

So you could argue that I am testing to just the latest regs, but I have in mind that a lot of the stuff in the latest regs wasn't in the 16th Ed and previous so the lack of compliance doesn't automatically mean a problem. I don't know if that makes it clearer?

There is a useful best practice guide from the ESC for this which might help clarify what is and what is not seen as a problem. http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/use...y/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

Like I said, I can't claim to be an expert, I only passed my 2395 recently, but I think I have enough experience to adequately inspect a typical domestic property and give a good report. If I go through the inspection and test and find something I don't like or understand there are always people here with more experience who are willing to help.

 

[brman]

btw. I just realised one of the examples above I gave could be argued over. Fire hazards such as lamps exceeding the rating of the fitting would be a C2 as it is not immediately dangerous. The ESC guides that charring or other evidence of overheating is a C2 too but I would argue that excessive charring leading me to believe there was a imminent risk of a fire would get a C1 from me.

And to answer your question on conductor identification, I think it depends on the "error". If a switch live is blue because it is using the neutral of a T&E then that is fairly common practice and not really dangerous. In line with the ESc guide I would not give it a code as I would not be expecting someone to remove every switch and rose to sleeve it brown. However if the Line conductor on a ring was black of blue or worse still green/yellow then a C2 as it is potentially dangerous and should be sorted asap. Just my opinion based on my training plus the ESC guide though!

 

[IQ Electrical]

Yes, most standard ceiling roses are class II. Assuming the earth terminal is just to allow you to terminate your cables correctly and it doesn't connect to anything internal to the rose/pendant.

Not sure whether you have missed anything or not.
you are testing to both the current regs and those in place when the circuit was installed. Nothing has to be brought up to current regs unless it is dangerous or potentially dangerous (so that is C1 or C2). C3 can be used if not up to current regs but not potentially dangerous, as in the case of a lack of CPC in a Class II lighting circuit. So yes, this should have been on the cert.
However things like old colours, switch lines not identified as a line conductor etc don't get a comment.

You are testing ONLY to the current edition of BS7671 and making comments/listing defects in comparison with the current edition!
As BlueToBits correctly points out, would you carry round the complete set of superseded editions and then start to determine which one the installation was covered by at the time? Think about it!

 

[brman]

You are testing ONLY to the current edition of BS7671 and making comments/listing defects in comparison with the current edition!
As BlueToBits correctly points out, would you carry round the complete set of superseded editions and then start to determine which one the installation was covered by at the time? Think about it!

yes, I realised that might be a bit confusing, hence my comment in my next post....

So you could argue that I am testing to just the latest regs, but I have in mind that a lot of the stuff in the latest regs wasn't in the 16th Ed and previous so the lack of compliance doesn't automatically mean a problem. I don't know if that makes it clearer?

Sorry if that caused confusion......

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The purpose of a periodic inspection is not (as would appear to be suggested by many comments) to verify that an installation complies with the current edition of the Regulations, but to determine whether it is safe for continued use.
The inspection should be conducted in accordance with the current edition, and non-compliances with the current edition which may give rise to danger, should identified and commented on.
However in the introduction to each edition and amenment of BS7671 there is a statement which in affect states: Existing installations and any alterations which have not significantly deteriorated, and which complied at the time of design/construction with earlier editions of the Regulations, are considered safe for continued use.
One of the duties of an Inspector whilst conducting a periodic inspection, is to determine whether the installation has significantly deteriorated.

To my mind, if an Inspector does not have knowledge of or access to earlier editions of the Regulations, then he/she should not be conducting inspections on installations which were designed/constructed to earlier editions of the Regulations.
He/she would not have sufficient knowledge to be deemed competent.