retrospective work.

[5544]

when carrying out a PIR before an address is rented out, there are always the issues of original wiring being sub standard for current regs. examples being earthing, special locations, RCD's smoke detectors to state just a few.i always make a point of upgrading the earthing, and do my best to suggest RCD's for showers, but what if anything do other people practically insist on apart from the standard PIR inspection tests.i would appreciate others views

 

[IQ Electrical]

It's not about what you 'insist on' it's about sticking to the guidance available on defect codes and explaining clearly (also in writing) the benefits in carrying out rectification works and the dangers of not carrying out those works.

Have a read of this:http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/industry/best_practice/BPG4_08.pdf

 

[5544]

Yes, but there is a difference between defects and wiring that was to standard when installed, but is not to let's say, 17th edition.

 

[oldtimer]

Well you must be reading this all wrong then you cannot apply the 17th edition to say a 14th edition job ie earth bonding at 6mm ,3036 fuses RCD protection to a shower installed before the requirement if the property passes its tests then fine but you can only recommend You also state the cable is substandard can you expand on this remember if the cable passes its Zs and insulation tests then it complies. Remember the regs were not designed to be retrospective as this would drop about 90% of the homes in Britian right in it but what they do say is if your are going to modify ,change ,add on to, install then thats the time to bring it up to the 17th I do work for a Letting agent who get "rolling" (dont ask) PIRs done to their properties and they comply to the current standard requirements for that installation

 

[5544]

Exactly the answer I was looking for. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[telectrix]

anything that complied when installed that is still in a sound and safe condition, but not compliant with current regs ( 17th) is a code 4. you can recommend improvement, but not give the installation an "unsatisfactory"

 

[IQ Electrical]

Yes, but there is a difference between defects and wiring that was to standard when installed, but is not to let's say, 17th edition.

You must read that guide that I linked too if you are carrying out periodic inspections-it's all in there, along with commonly included 'defects' that aren't actually defects.

The whole point of the 1-4 defect code system is to allow for non-retrospective changes to be recorded as a code 4.

How can the 'wiring' that you mention not fit into one of the codes and as such, be deemed satisfactory or unsatisfactory?

This is where the skill of an experienced inspector is called upon and why the phrase 'an above-average knowledge of BS7671' is used when competence is judged on these inspections.

 

[topquark]

Yes, but there is a difference between defects and wiring that was to standard when installed, but is not to let's say, 17th edition.

There is NO requirement for an existing installation to be "up to" 17th edition standards.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The code 4, is for observations, which do not comply with current Regulations, but are not necessarily unsafe.
That does not necessarily mean that something that once complied with earlier editions are still considered safe.
For instance fuses in neutrals, or RFCs on two separate 15A fuses.

 

[topquark]

Under the new EICR we will only have C1, C2 and C3 now though and should only comment on something that is considered to be unsafe (as Spin points out, even if it previously complied with an earlier edition of the regs).