Is my Property Electrical Test and Inspection Report Misleading?

[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.