PIR 16th Vs 17th please clarify

[scotsparky]

forgot how many ammendment the 16th had but had a lot of pen marks and scribbles in the book.

 

[Spudnik]

I think the biggest problem with the regs is that it tells what you must and must not do, but it does not give you any clues on how to achieve them, or not.

 

[scotsparky]

Thats where the skill of a tradesman comes in! Its an art that cannot be taught in a 6 week course.

 

[Spudnik]

Thats where the skill of a tradesman comes in! Its an art that cannot be taught in a 6 week course.

Absolutely indeed.

 

[baldsparkies]

Thats where the skill of a tradesman comes in! Its an art that cannot be taught in a 6 week course.

Here here mate, but now we are coming into the realms of eager to get on a part P scheme, show us yer money and presto welcome on board. Will be interesting to see what the future brings.

 

[professional]

I suppose if enough of the same questions are getting back to the iee from in the field electricians,then clarification comes to us through ammendmants.The 16th had more than it's fair share of those over the years.

There is no mechanism for this though - I have been saying this for years. The experiences of the real world do not influence decisions made by the people making the regs - there is no mechanisn for sparks to have a voice or any influence in any decision-making process.

Government consultations are only entered into AFTER all relevant decisions have already been made - and we get stuck with the half-baked results.

Electricians need a Trade Association! This could have a massive influence on policy - the politicians realise this and are actively blocking such a move.

 

[craig2210]

Hi there guys. I have read through the posts here regarding RCD's on circuits and what to class them as on a PIR and thought I would show my opinions. The new regs state that all circuits that supply portable appliances (socket outlets basically) need to have RCD protection unless supervised by a competant/skilled person. If this is not the case then this circuit needs to be class 1, REQUIRES URGENT ATTENTION. As does the installation of RCD's to circuits supplying current using equipment in a special location, this again requires a class 1. However, the current version of BS7671:2008 states that any cable burried in a wall that does not have an earthed metallic sheath or installed in earthed conduit needs to be protected by an RCD. Because this doesn't cause a greater risk or electric shick than socket outlets or current using equipment in a special location then this can been deemed as a class 4 "not complying with the current version of BS7671" unless, of course, the cables run out of the prescribed zones. If the cables were found NOT to be in prescribed zones AND not to be RCD protected then this should be deemed a class 1 as, again, there is a greater risk of electric shock. But, as everyone has stressed on here, it is all done to how we read and digest to regs as an individual. At the end of the day you are reporting on the condition of the current installation and also as to how SAFE that installation is. So if we have no RCD protection on socket outlets and special locations, undersized earth etc that common sense says this is NOT a safe place to be and is therefore UNSATISFACTORY. Hope this helps

 

[m4ttyd]

lol pathetic

 

[craig2210]

lol pathetic

What is?

 

[baldsparkies]

Craig, so there it is. The iee have issued a new set of regulations that states that all socket outlets used by unsupervised persons,(and thats virtually every house in the country) are now deemed to have rcd protection otherwise they are dangerous by admission code 1.
How many homes are we talking about here,and now ask yourself would they be classed as dangerous if the 16th were still current. Do you feel that when the iee brought the new regs into force they were aware of what they would be implying if indeed we are reading this correctly. If so surely it would have been the iee's responsibility to inform the general public through the media,news channels and local/ national papers that from this day fourth your home is a death trap,your electrics are unsafe and we are talking to something like 75% of the population.
Once again unless we can all agree on this,one way or the other then it needs clarification,and the sooner the better.
Can you remember the bonding plague that came with the 1st introduction of the 16th.A lady stops outside a biulding site with a pushchair to talk to a friend and the next thing she knows there's a green and yellow cable attached to it? (Sorry say's the young apprentice,but your pushchair contains conductive parts and your outside the equipotential bonding zone)

 

[scotsparky]

o yes Baldsparkie the famopus "do i bond the double glazed winndow frame debate?2

 

[YoYoDude]

As above really, in Obsrevations and limitation state - installation is safe and comlies with 16th : 2004 or 15th :1984, or whenever it was installed. State upgrades as required ie. New Metallic lighting need earths. If there's serious safty issues then you do whatever is nessacery to sleep that night. Weather thats putting pen to paper or pulling the plug. Lates

 

[NoSparks]

RCD CODEs

Code 1: The main RCD or voltage operated earth leakage circuit breaker on a TT system failes to operate when tested

Code 1: Absence of RCD protection for socket-outlets in bathrooms or shower rooms, other than SELV or shaver socket-outlets

Code 2: Absence of fault protection (protection against indirect contact) by RCD where required, such as for a socket-outlet circuit in an installation forming part of a TT system.

Code 2: Absence of RCD protection for portable or mobile equipment that may reasonably be expected to be used outdoors

Code 2: Neither local supplementary bonding nor RCD protection is present in a bathroom or shower room.

{Note the absence of any code for RCDs to protect cables in walls etc Rule 522.6.7}


SUMMERISING THE REPORT
It would not be reasonable to indicate a
‘satisfactory’ assessment if any observation in
the report had been given a Code 1 or Code 2
recommendation.

{I think thuis should read "It would be unreasonable to indicate a ‘satisfactory’ assessment if any observation in the report had been given a Code 1 or Code 2 recommendation. }

DEALING WITH CODE 1s
Where, during the course of inspection or testing, a
real and immediate danger is found to be present in
an installation (from an exposed live part, for
example), immediate action will be necessary to
make it safe before continuing.


Contractors should note that, even in domestic
premises, Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work
etc Act 1974 and the Electricity at Work Regulations
1989 effectively require them to endeavour to make
safe, before leaving site and with the agreement of
the user or owner, any dangerous conditions found
in an installation.


From this we can only conclude that the final report can under no circumstance have any code 1 s !!!!!!!!

Apart from my conclusion in italics, all above are extracts from the BestPractice Guide published by the ESC.



*********************************************************************************************************
The above was my first post and was not originally displayed ! That below was my second post and has been joind to the first! What is happening?
***********************************************************************************************************


I'm wondering it its worth replying again. I've just spend 20mins getting quotes from the ESC Guide to best practice and it all got lost when I posted. Anyway the guide escentiall says:

If its a TT system the RCD failure or none existance is a Code 1
Lack of RCD protecting a bathroom is Code 2
Lack of RCd to protect cables in walls ect (Rule 522.6.7) dont even warrent a code!!!!

All items posing an immediate danger (ie Code 1s) must be fixed or made safe before leaving site. So I conclude you cant have any code 1 s left when you write out the report!!!

To answer the original question:
Both sparks mentioned need to re-consider their City and Guilds. BS7671 is NOT a legal document and nobody is required to comply. At best they can only be advised to upgrade. In any case (as mentioed by others) items which are not in accord with current standards (2008) are simply Code 4 unless they constitute an immediate or potential danger. This includes the lack of a cpc in a lighting circuit, even though the best practice guide on that subject recommends us to recomend a re-wire. Only the "lack of a cpc in a circuit feeding Class 1 equipment other than a lighting circuit" scores a code 2.

 

[Spudnik]

If you post in a thread and no one posts after you, if you post again, it automatically merges the two posts together.

 

[trebor]

Hi there,


Been doing periodics for 10 years now... Will someone clarify to me, now the 17th has come into effect, what regulations i'm testing to.... for example I was told by a very good spark that if the installation complies to 16th edition regs then its a pass with all the nessary notes explaning it must be upgraded, he even gives out one year certs to enforce this.

Another sparky however said that this isn't right and he is telling customers that everything must now comply to 17th edition. so if that means a re-wire so be it.

Have a look at this, excent free official advice, whilst on this page click on the 17th edition link under Other on the left of the page, questions from sparks but with official answers and guidance

Have a look at this, excent free official advice, whilst on this page click on the 17th edition link under Other on the left of the page, questions from sparks but with official answers and guidance

sorry forgot to put the link in, here it is

Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety Council

 

[professional]

Some of the GUIDANCE is somewhat

isleading - the definitions of what constitutes a Code 1 and 2 have been tinkered with to satisfy a hidden agenda.

Personally I use common sense and experience above guidance given by faceless armchair experts.

 

[trebor]

Some of the GUIDANCE is somewhat

isleading - the definitions of what constitutes a Code 1 and 2 have been tinkered with to satisfy a hidden agenda.

Personally I use common sense and experience above guidance given by faceless armchair experts.

You are exactly right, it is only guidance, as the inspector /tester it is down to you to make a judgement , the `experts` arent there, not including you of course

 

[Graeme Harrold]

Wow........read through this entire thread with great interest. I have recently moved in to the electrical field form years in the mechanical (this did include generators up to 40kVA).

The main just Im getting is that there is very little strict pass/fail criteria especially with the legalities of shutting down an unsafe installation. All you can do is put your professional opinion on a sheet of paper having done a dilligent inspection and report the condition of the installation 1) against the orignal design and 2) against the current regulations.

My analogy is with seatbelts in cars, regs changed and rear belts had to be fitted (admittedly by law) many years ago. Owners could only be advised to fit belts, but there was no leverage to enforce the fitment. MOT inspections are also down to the judgement of the inspector with only a few areas having a distinct pass/fail (emissions, tyre tread etc.).

All you can do is give a TRUE reflection of what you have found and inform the person commisioning the report.

 

[rob1967]

I "personally" think that as long as we can identify dagerous or at risk situations, and the differences between them and not to current standards situations we will be fine. The regs are there to be interpreted by us .

Cheers

PIRS are a legal doucement, so what ever you put on them should be based on what you think and know from experience.
Once you have done the report you can walk away knowing you have done all you needed to reguardless if the installation is unsatisfactory or satisfactory. if any work needs to be done ( of the back of your report ) then thats up to the customer if they have it done or not. if the worst should happen and someone gets a shock or worse you always have your report to back up your findings which should cover you, as you were employed to give a report reguardless of what your findings should be and that is what you have done.............

 

[MikeK]

As a rule of thumb, should I do a visual inspection and immediately see that the installation is too outdated, I would give a Code 1 and advise a complete rewire. Why continue testing when you know that you're going to come across so many departures?

Why?
Possibly because you are getting paid to do it.
Do it properly and do it in full.

Clients descision on what action (if any) to take depending on report and who will complete this action.

If the installation is "to outdated" dont charge - walk away - and let someone else do it properly.

Mike K