non compliant

[Farmelectrics]

having a good read of the best practise guide 4 and reading the non compliant with bs 7671 that do not give rise to danger and do not require reporting confusing I must say ie in the past ive allways given a code 3 for switch wires that have no brown sleeving on ie blue cables but it states that you don't give it a code its just non compliant with bs7671 but surely if its non compliant it wants reporting your thoughts please

 

[HandySparks]

Not confusing at all.

If it's not immediately or potentially dangerous and if changing it won't materially improve the safety of the installation, don't code it.

 

[Octopus]

I simply can't be arsxd to code any missing brown or red sleeving - life if far to short to bother with this!.

Tin hat on!

 

[Risteard]

Not confusing at all.

If it's not immediately or potentially dangerous and if changing it won't materially improve the safety of the installation, don't code it.

Indeed, but the potential confusion arises from the fact that the Regulations exist to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that electrical installations are safe. If it wasn't considered necessary for safety then the Requirement wouldn't exist. So I can see where he is coming from.

 

[Farmelectrics]

right long day today im cracking a tinny open

 

[7029 dave]

The line conductors can be marked as well, ie live or L, not necessarily sleeved.

 

[Simonslimline]

To be honest anyone poking around inside an electrical system should possess the know how and competence to be able to identify the conductors with no problems really.

All that said putting a bit of sleeving on is not really a big ask when installing new circuits etc. We have always given this scenario a C3 when carrying out an EICR, over the top maybe but would still be a satisfactory report none the less.

I am sure many may disagree with this however. :rockon2:

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Remember that the BPGs, GNs and the OSG are just opinions, not Regulations.
Code C3, is just a catch all code where an inspector observes a non-compliance which (for whatever reason) cannot be recorded as a C1 or C2.

 

[Blademan_98]

Remember that the BPGs, GNs and the OSG are just opinions, not Regulations.
Code C3, is just a catch all code where an inspector observes a non-compliance which (for whatever reason) cannot be recorded as a C1 or C2.

That is how I have just been taught at the college
The practical had a switch with no sleeve and I marked it as C3 which was deemed correct.
B

 

[Risteard]

Code C3, is just a catch all code where an inspector observes a non-compliance which (for whatever reason) cannot be recorded as a C1 or C2.

Not really, as a non-compliance without any definite safety deficit is not to be awarded any recommendation whatsoever (not even C3). Not all non-compliances are to be recorded.

 

[K Macnamara]

Each installation is different in its own right. Best practice is to flag everything that you see. You don't have to code every thing you notice but if you note it in the report you cover your backside. If the client is aware of everything then it's down to them to act upon it. The next sparks who works on the installation could be fresh out of college and that bit of sleeving could make all the difference. How many ways can you control a lighting circuit???? Ever opened a multi gang switch and there are a box full of brown singles what then???? If the installation is simple and it's just a case of the blue not being sleeved you may shrug your shoulders and tut and not be too fussed. However, if the installation is in old colours (red and black) and additions and alterations have been made using new colours, would it not make sense to sleeve the black on the 3 core in the new colours to ensure it's not mistaken as a neutral? And there's Red Yellow and blue in the old 3 core and so on.

If you ever have an annual inspection with the NICEIC (or the like) and that job where you didn't flag it is the one they pick to look at, you can bet your life they will.

I have lost count the amount of times I have been called upon to sort out a problem that someone who has no idea thought it was easy and they could do it themselves. We make it look easy because we have invested vast amounts of time and money so make it count.

We can all pick faults in others work that's easy but I love seeing a good installation. I used to take it to heart when a builder dropped me for a different sparks because they were cheaper. Then they began phoning me to sort out the problems.

There's nothing wrong about setting your standards high. Its a reason why I charge as much as I do.

Electrics does exactly what it says on the tin. Gives you a shock!!!! And when you get a belt you begin to respect it again.

Now that is probably the longest amount of time I have spent at the pc without looking at......

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Not really, as a non-compliance without any definite safety deficit is not to be awarded any recommendation whatsoever (not even C3). Not all non-compliances are to be recorded.

We have never been required to make recommendations, only to note dangerous or potentially dangerous conditions.
However we had code 4, and now have code C3 which are for recording non-dangerous conditions. With code C3 being specifically for non-compliances.

 

[Risteard]

Unless something is non-compliant with BS7671 it cannot be recorded on the EICR - however this does not mean that everything which is non-compliant should necessarily be recorded.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No not strictly true.
For instance if I were to inspect a 3 bedroom house, I might consider there is not enough sockets in the bedrooms.
My reasons might be that as the house is likely to be used by a family, children's bedrooms will need sufficient sockets for computer games, TVs, phone chargers, toys, etc.
Not sure what code could be applied from BS 7671.
I once saw a convector heater with no legs sitting directly on top of a work surface.
I applied a code C2, as the bottom vents were blocked by the work surface, preventing air circulation.
Again not sure which code from BS 7671 would apply.

 

[Risteard]

No not strictly true.
For instance if I were to inspect a 3 bedroom house, I might consider there is not enough sockets in the bedrooms.

It is strictly true. Any observation must derogate from the Regulations.

Incidentally, BS7671 does require the provision of an adequate number of socket outlets so you are liberty to comment on that if necessary.

I applied a code C2, as the bottom vents were blocked by the work surface, preventing air circulation.

Again, there are a number of Regulations which could be used to justify that.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Can't say that I am aware of a Regulation pertaining to the number of sockets required for an installation.
Of course I don't know all the Regulations.
Strictly speaking, BS 7671 does not cover appliances plugged into sockets.
So I would be hard pressed finding a Regulation covering the mis-use of an appliance or equipment.

 

[Risteard]

Can't say that I am aware of a Regulation pertaining to the number of sockets required for an installation.

I never said there was one specifying numbers. I said that there is a Regulation requiring adequate provision of socket outlets - so it is a matter of judgement.

Also, you never mentioned that the heaters were plugged in. I presumed that they were wired in.

 

[hightower]

553.1.7 I think?

 

[rattlehead85]

Doing EICR's for a local housing authority who bloody refuse to even pay to rectify c1 and c2 departures i tend not to code as it says as per BPG for these items. I will attach a footnote stating things such as colouring to previous regs, no sleeving, lack of adequate smoke detection, inaccessible bonding (so long as you can prove it is adequate via wander lead 0.05 test between m.e.t and pipework)
I will also refer to use of BPG4 on certificate along with photo evidence...job done.

 

[Risteard]

0.05 test between m.e.t and pipework)
I will also refer to use of BPG4 on certificate along with photo evidence...job done.

There has never been a requirement for a main protective bonding conductor to have a resistance not exceeding 0.05 Ohms, nor was the Guidance suggesting this.

As for a so-called "Best Practice Guide" it is simply a guide and I'm not sure who gave them the right to declare what best practice is. I believe in free thought!