So AFDD then for all Landlords???

[Vortigern]

I was just thinking if NAPIT are coding no RCD on lighting, to comply with the new LL law/S.I. as C2 then presumably we would also have to say absence of AFDD is likewise C2? And how about SPD as well. This surely can't be right, making regs retrospective.

 

[radiohead]

AFDD's and SPD's in dwellings are not required, only recommended. No code is appropriate.
RCD protection to lighting circuits is now required, but should not attract a code 2 except perhaps in special locations. NAPIT are wrong to suggest blanket code 2.

 

[Ian1981]

AFDD’s are a recommendation only, SPD’s are not a recommendation in dwellings , they are required unless the cost therin does not justify such protection.

 

[littlespark]

What about metal consumer units? Some poor (huh!) landlord has his property rewired 5 years ago, got a nice plastic CU....
Future proofed by having everything off rcd.

Sorry, got to come out.

 

[DPG]

Napit are going to cause a lot of people to have work done that they will not need. Which will help all the cowboys out there, who won't fully inform the customer.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

Almost makes me happy to be with the NIC ?

 

[nicebutdim]

Out of curiosity; are Napit members expected to adhere to coding according to codebreakers or is it intended as a guide?

Seems like a relevant question if the book contradicts other guidance.

 

[radiohead]

AFDD’s are a recommendation only, SPD’s are not a recommendation in dwellings , they are required unless the cost therin does not justify such protection.

Translated that means they are not required but are recommended.

 

[Vortigern]

The thing is, as we have seen, people are already whipping out C2 for LLs on this issue. Surely artistic liecence (purposefully mispelt) will soon include metalclad CU, AFDD, SPD and a partridge in a pear tree. I personally believe it is a mistake in the new S.I. to insist on 18th edition compliance in fact nonsense to be clear. So when the 19th comes out in December (I prophesy) we still have to ensure compliance with an obsolete version of regs. really!

 

[Welchyboy1]

Out of curiosity; are Napit members expected to adhere to coding according to codebreakers or is it intended as a guide?

Seems like a relevant question if the book contradicts other guidance.

Dont panic quite yet

 

[Vortigern]

I think we all know that NAPIT and NICEIC et al do give out advice which is no way even regulatory or required. It is the case that it is up to the judgement of the person doing the EICR. Although I must say it is a good book and a good reference to sort of compare my thinking with what was no doubt a team effort of a few people who know their job. The regs refs. in there are handy as well for filling in reports.

 

[Dartlec]

Don't know the answer to this one, but has an eicr ever been tested in court? As in an incident/fire/whatever and the contents of an EICR been used against the report creator?

There are some obvious issues which aren't up for much debate, but there's a lot of grey area where the inspectors judgement is considered more important than the 'regulations'. I suspect if you got 5 electrical 'experts' together to discuss a topic you'd rarely get 100% agreement on anything.

 

[Welchyboy1]

I think we all know that NAPIT and NICEIC et al do give out advice which is no way even regulatory or required. It is the case that it is up to the judgement of the person doing the EICR. Although I must say it is a good book and a good reference to sort of compare my thinking with what was no doubt a team effort of a few people who know their job. The regs refs. in there are handy as well for filling in reports.

Yes i bought it for the same reason, although i found a few of the codings on the extreme side and against the general consensus of the industry which is only going to cause more conflicting issues than its claiming to solve.

It seemed unless the issue is extremely minor(e.g. Missing switch wire sleeving) its mostly a code 2 regardless

A bit of a cop out/--- covering exercise if you ask me!

Me personally, I will be working on the guidance of the electrical safety first guide primarily but like you say its good for reference and covers more examples than most guides.

 

[AJshep]

NAPIT aren't suggesting that you code no RCD protection o lighting circuits a C2?

Quote from the Codebreaker book.
"Circuit supplying luminaires in a domestic dwelling,class 1 fittings, No 30mA RCD protection C3.

 

[Markyd]

AFDD’s are a recommendation only, SPD’s are not a recommendation in dwellings , they are required unless the cost therin does not justify such protection.

WRONG...Recommendation only, if the client says no then no

 

[Brian Taylor]

Yes i bought it for the same reason, although i found a few of the codings on the extreme side and against the general consensus of the industry which is only going to cause more conflicting issues than its claiming to solve.

It seemed unless the issue is extremely minor(e.g. Missing switch wire sleeving) its mostly a code 2 regardless

A bit of a cop out/--- covering exercise if you ask me!

Me personally, I will be working on the guidance of the electrical safety first guide primarily but like you say its good for reference and covers more examples than most guides.

hi reading this thread with interest...I must agree that a great deal of confusion exists about codeing of faults.I think to a certain degree a fair proportion of testers over do the C1 and C2 codes in fear of some misplaced sense of misconduct if they give a less severe codeing.I must admit I think a lot of rubbish is written and talked about viewing especially by some organisations who should know better and these opinions very often only serve to scare the tester into making decisions which are not warranted.
As I understand it a code 1 is reserved for the most onerous conditions is where live conductor/ part are exposed and liable to be touched e.g. A damaged sockets with live exposed parts of a CU which is damaged such that live parts are easily touched. Code 2 faults are those which are not dangerous as is but may become dangerous in the future e.g. a cracked socket , in this context i have seen some sparks condem a socket simply due to a small defect on a corner..I think we must all agree that this would not warrant any codeing at all. I accept that there is a proportion of the trade that overdo the codeing in order to milk the job. In my opinion there are very few defects that warrant a code 1 and not many more that attract a code 2, the vast number of faults will be code 3 or Further investigation required. This does not of course mean that a never ending list of code 3s will not result in an unsatisfactory report it will, but the overuse of code 1 & 2 should not be used simply as a catch all to produce an unsatisfactory result and hence unwarranted rectification works.

 

[Welchyboy1]

NAPIT aren't suggesting that you code no RCD protection o lighting circuits a C2?

Quote from the Codebreaker book.
"Circuit supplying luminaires in a domestic dwelling,class 1 fittings, No 30mA RCD protection C3.

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]

hi reading this thread with interest...I must agree that a great deal of confusion exists about codeing of faults.I think to a certain degree a fair proportion of testers over do the C1 and C2 codes in fear of some misplaced sense of misconduct if they give a less severe codeing.I must admit I think a lot of rubbish is written and talked about viewing especially by some organisations who should know better and these opinions very often only serve to scare the tester into making decisions which are not warranted.
As I understand it a code 1 is reserved for the most onerous conditions is where live conductor/ part are exposed and liable to be touched e.g. A damaged sockets with live exposed parts of a CU which is damaged such that live parts are easily touched. Code 2 faults are those which are not dangerous as is but may become dangerous in the future e.g. a cracked socket , in this context i have seen some sparks condem a socket simply due to a small defect on a corner..I think we must all agree that this would not warrant any codeing at all. I accept that there is a proportion of the trade that overdo the codeing in order to milk the job. In my opinion there are very few defects that warrant a code 1 and not many more that attract a code 2, the vast number of faults will be code 3 or Further investigation required. This does not of course mean that a never ending list of code 3s will not result in an unsatisfactory report it will, but the overuse of code 1 & 2 should not be used simply as a catch all to produce an unsatisfactory result and hence unwarranted rectification works.

And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

 

[Brian Taylor]

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]


And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

Well ideally yes but I have had cases in the last where a customer has requested that not rectification works were carried out and in addition informed me that to isolate the installation (which would have been the best thing)would have been a restraint of his trade ( he put dog food in bags) obviously dogs are more important that his staff

 

[Brian Taylor]

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]


And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

Would agree that a cable buried in a wall is a code 3 at the most

 

[Ian1981]

WRONG...Recommendation only, if the client says no then no

Tell me where it says it’s recommendation Only for an SPD please?
Think you’ll find it doesn’t and what’s with the attitude?