testing existing installations to current edition of BS 7671

[Dave the spark]

A question, if you please...

When testing an existing installation BS 7671 states that it should be tested to the current edition of regs, and that doesn't necessarily mean the installation will be dangerous if wired previous to that edition.

My question is, how should you code for no RCD protection for additional protection? Is this, in all cases, a code 2 observation?

I'm still gaining experience in testing and inspection and currently sitting my 2394/95. So, in short, no snide answers

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No it doesn't make reference to the editions, why should it, why would it matter?
Anyone who has read the current Regulations will know there is no requirement for socket-outlets to be provided with RCD protection in case they may be used to supply portable/mobile equipment outdoors.

 

[westward10]

No it doesn't make reference to the editions, why should it, why would it matter?
Anyone who has read the current Regulations will know there is no requirement for socket-outlets to be provided with RCD protection in case they may be used to supply portable/mobile equipment outdoors.

Me thinks you need to review post 56 where you clearly appear to be quoting the BPG.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Hmmm, if I were quoting something, there would be quotation marks, or some other indication that something is being quoted.
Then again you are obviously aware that it is not a quote.

 

[westward10]

Hmmm, if I were quoting something, there would be quotation marks, or some other indication that something is being quoted.

Spin is apt, quote or no quote you imply these are words from the Beano, sorry BPG.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I think what you need to do, is stop looking for hidden meanings in things, and just accept them at face value.
I also think, rather than just increasing your post count with these puerile posts, you should actually make a point, assuming you have one to make.

 

[davesparks]

Best Practice Guide, published by the Electrical Safety Council, which I believe may be now known as Electrical Safety First or something similar.
What Westwood has not mentioned, is that all of the registration bodies in the U.K. advise their members to use the BPGs for guidance.

And what you have not mentioned is that electrical safety first or whatever they are now are funded by Certsure who own the NICEIC and ELECSA brands. So it's all the same organisation churning out this stuff.

These are the people who invented the idea that a sticker and a new CU is an acceptable alternative to installing a cpc for a lighting circuit which doesn't have one. And that at a time when the regulations specifically forbade such reliance on an RCD.

 

[westward10]

And what you have not mentioned is that electrical safety first or whatever they are now are funded by Certsure who own the NICEIC and ELECSA brands. So it's all the same organisation churning out this stuff.

These are the people who invented the idea that a sticker and a new CU is an acceptable alternative to installing a cpc for a lighting circuit which doesn't have one. And that at a time when the regulations specifically forbade such reliance on an RCD.

Wish I could treble like that Dave.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes well, I was aware that the ESC was just the NICEIC by another name.
Was not aware they also own Certsure.
Was aware that the NICEIC had taken over the ECA, ELECSA and SELECT.
Not aware that the Regulations have ever prohibited the use of an RCD to provide earth fault protection.
My understanding, is that the advice given is to provide a sticker, RCD protection and class II fittings and accessories. That the advice only applies to situations where the intention is to replace a CU in an an installation where lighting circuits do not have a CPC, and for whatever reason there is no intention to install a CPC.

 

[davesparks]

Yes well, I was aware that the ESC was just the NICEIC by another name.
Was not aware they also own Certsure.
Was aware that the NICEIC had taken over the ECA, ELECSA and SELECT.
Not aware that the Regulations have ever prohibited the use of an RCD to provide earth fault protection.
My understanding, is that the advice given is to provide a sticker, RCD protection and class II fittings and accessories. That the advice only applies to situations where the intention is to replace a CU in an an installation where lighting circuits do not have a CPC, and for whatever reason there is no intention to install a CPC.

No, Certsure own the NIC etc along with gas-safe aswell as far as I know.

It was the 16th edition which specifically prohibited the use of an RCD on its own in such a situation.

The advice is that it is a last resort option when faced with an absolute refusal to have the necessary work carried out. But it has become the default response in the situation you describe whenever there is no intention to have the cpc installed, often that is no intention because it is more profitable to just change CUs

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Still not aware that the 16th edition prohibited the use of an RCD for earth fault protection?
Makes me wonder what the 16th expected to be done where the earthing system was TT?
Not sure what the stuff about the BPG is in relation to?
Yes, there are people out there who will change CUs at the drop of a hat whether they need changing or not.
It appears that to some, changing a CU will sort just about everything out, except of course when it doesn't.
I recall seeing a PIR which recommended replacing a CU because the current CU had no warning labels and no circuit descriptions.
The same PIR managed to identify all of the circuits except the boiler circuit, recommended further investigation to determine what the circuit was for.

 

[westward10]

I think what you need to do, is stop looking for hidden meanings in things, and just accept them at face value.
I also think, rather than just increasing your post count with these puerile posts, you should actually make a point, assuming you have one to make.

My point is to explain where in the BPG it references socket outlets installed to the 16th or 17th Editions, I have just downloaded a pdf of this publication and after perusing it for some time I have no idea what you are getting at. What do I need to accept at face value. You appear to be digging a deep hole at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Ok, please explain.
I haven't looked at a BPG for a number of years, so it may be that things have changed.
However I would expect that some reference is made to the introduction in BS7671 where it states installations which complied with earlier editions are not necessarily unsafe.
I would further expect there to be a reference to only making observations which relate to particular Regulations, not to personal opinion or considered best practice.
There should also be some mention of only making observations for dangerous or potentially dangerous conditions.
You've downloaded a copy, read it, then try to explain why codes for certain situations have been chosen.

 

[westward10]

You haven't looked at it for a number of years but post 56 indicates you have and put your own spin on it. This post is clearly misleading and being a Trusted Advisor I think it should be removed.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You haven't looked at it for a number of years but post 56 indicates you have and put your own spin on it. This post is clearly misleading and being a Trusted Advisor I think it should be removed.

Not sure what it is you think is being said here?
If you read post 56, it is a reply to a quoted post.
It is not a quote from the BPG.
Why you think it is misleading, I have no idea?
As for being a trusted advisor, I have no idea what you think that particular badge signifies?

 

[westward10]

#56, " The BPG advises a Code 3 for socket outlets which do not comply with the requirements of the 17th Edition............. etc.
This is what I read and I am not saying anymore, you clearly like to get a rise out of people I have seen it before I shall leave you to your Guide book.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

As you well know, that was a response to this:

I note that the BPG linked by Murdoch suggests a C3 code for sockets without RCD protection and a C2 for those likely to be used for portable/mobile equipment outside, or o/s zones in special location?

Stop wasting my time with these sensless and puerile posts.

 

[davesparks]

Still not aware that the 16th edition prohibited the use of an RCD for earth fault protection?
M

I didn't say that though did I, I said it prohibited it's use on its own. An RCD could be used as additional protection but not as the sole means of protection

 

[DPG]

I note that the BPG linked by Murdoch suggests a C3 code for sockets without RCD protection and a C2 for those likely to be used for portable/mobile equipment outside, or o/s zones in special location?

I forgot what the argument was about now. Gives a hand down here Maureen! Now you gave me a tenner.

I remember that character! Harry Enfield, great stuff

 

[Midwest]

I remember that character! Harry Enfield, great stuff

Who Murdoch?

 

[DPG]

What's that Maureen? Someone's backed into the old Volvo?

 

[Besoeker]

Not sure if this is the right place for this.
If you get called in for a minor residential repair and you find that the electrical installation is a mess to the point of it puting the residents at ris..........what do you do? What must you do? Surely not just walk away?

 

[kingeri]

You should bring your findings to the attention of the owner. If the installation is unsuitable to take new work, then don't do it. Put your findings in writing to the customer. If the work is a repair, it may still be appropriate to carry out that repair.

 

[Besoeker]

You should bring your findings to the attention of the owner. If the installation is unsuitable to take new work, then don't do it. Put your findings in writing to the customer. If the work is a repair, it may still be appropriate to carry out that repair.

In this case the customer is the landlord, not the resident, and is unwilling to have (pay for) the remedial work to make the installatiion safe.

So what next steps can be taken?
Having seen the unsafe installion, don't you have a duty to report it?

 

[polo1]

In this case the customer is the landlord, not the resident, and is unwilling to have (pay for) the remedial work to make the installatiion safe.

So what next steps can be taken?
Having seen the unsafe installion, don't you have a duty to report it?

You can produce a danger notice and ( try to) get the landlord to sign, which acknowledges receipt. The tenants should report concern about the condition of the installation to the local council. If they are on their game, they can force the l/lord to carry out essential repairs. Beyond this, your hands are tied.

 

[Risteard]

I often find with landlords/landladies that putting it in writing focuses minds. After all they can't claim not to be aware of the dangers then.