PIR is it satisfactory.?

[grandfortune]

HI all,

dont really do PIR's but its family,

basically its and 30+ house they want to sell , wiring in good condition

earth in lighting

old WYLEX board with, 6mm main earth, 6mm to water and gas.

no rcd protection, TN-C-S

ok, so is it satifactory or not, i know its not upto 17th Ed regs but was fine when installed so it comply's yes.?


never sure on these as my house has a 16th Ed board in and would be satisfactory , where do you draw the line. to me no RCD and it should be changed.?

there was a big debate on the tv cowboy programme as there was and old wylex rewire-able board in 6mm earth to water and gas, basically every spark told them they needed a new board, which quite honestly i would have recommended, but expert said even that it comply's yo BS7671, so i never know

thanks
Grand

 

[telectrix]

all code 3's, so a satisfactory report, IMO. i would only add a code 2 for no RCD/s if sockets used for outside portable equipment.

 

[lynchie]

It doesn't comply with the 17th ed bs7671 but may have complied with a previous edition, as long as it is serviceable and not dangerous just advise not to current regs.

 

[yellowvanman]

I assume you tested insulation, zs values etc. and took a peak inside some accessories!

 

[jdd]

Definitely not satisfactory mate.

 

[telectrix]

Definitely not satisfactory mate.

why not????

 

[jdd]

No rcd protection to bathroom circuits and sockets for outdoor use as a minimum.

 

[Ponty Massive]

No rcd protection to bathroom circuits and sockets for outdoor use as a minimum.

Agree with the outdoor socket thingy....but why RCD protection to bathroom. Old installation, just check supp bonding etc and it should comply?

 

[yellowvanman]

No rcd protection to bathroom circuits and sockets for outdoor use as a minimum.

If supplementary bonding in place (not confirmed) then this conformed to a previous version of regs and so would not contribute to a non-satisfactory conclusion. Rcd protection of sockets is 16th so if this was done before the 16th then again ok! but would 'recommend' RCD installed or at least use an RCD plug.

 

[grandfortune]

See this is where it all falls down abit. im concerned about the bathroom no RCD, but then it was ok when first installed so there is nothing wrong with it, personally if i go to a property and look at the immersion heater, if it hasnt got a thermal cutout on it as this installation hasnt i would code that a code 1.

im filling in a visual report, i took a socket off and all was fine and unscrewed a few pendants saw earth and all looked ok.

the thing is if i walk in a house to do any type of work i insist on a new board.but im not in this case.

thanks for the replys lads

 

[Des 56]

See this is where it all falls down abit. im concerned about the bathroom no RCD, but then it was ok when first installed so there is nothing wrong with it, personally if i go to a property and look at the immersion heater, if it hasnt got a thermal cutout on it as this installation hasnt i would code that a code 1.

im filling in a visual report, i took a socket off and all was fine and unscrewed a few pendants saw earth and all looked ok.

the thing is if i walk in a house to do any type of work i insist on a new board.but im not in this case.

thanks for the replys lads

Thats too sweeping a statement for me to accept,after all, safety is not something that was first dreamed up when the 16th and 17th editions came about
Admittedly,the use of Rcds tend to make systems safer,but thats generally where they were unsafe for the editions they were installed to in the first place

 

[telectrix]

i would not insist on a new board, but obviously i would have to RCD any work i did, and also ensure earthing and bonding were adequate, or uypgrade.

 

[jdd]

Understand some of the comments, but just beacuse something was fine at the time does not mean that it is acceptable now. When you do your periodic you assess to the current edition of the regs.

 

[Ponty Massive]

Understand some of the comments, but just beacuse something was fine at the time does not mean that it is acceptable now. When you do your periodic you assess to the current edition of the regs.

If that was the case, then every PIR on an installation pre 17th edition, would be deemed unsatisfactory !!

 

[Des 56]

I think the word should have said COMPARE rather than ASSESS