Unusual predicament testing 17th Edt install

B

brewlab

Hello folks got a quick couple of questions regarding some testing i have recently undertaken.

Im doing an EICR for a friend on a couple of new build flats where the electrics were done by an unqualified builder.

If the install should be done to current regs are things like missing earths at pendants/switchs or no fan isolators a c2 or c3.

Sense tells me a c3 (with a note on the board about no metal light switchs or fiitings) but its a new build where everything should be done to current regs so does that make it a c2?

Theres no chance of connecting the earths as they are burried in a JB somewhere unreachable.

So basically my question is.....if an installation has been completed to the 17th edition when doing an eicr does the install have to meet all the current regs to get a satisfactory result or is it inspected/tested upon its actual condition?

FYI there are numerous small issues that dont really warrant a C2 but at the same time are certainly not up to current regs.

Shouldnt be doing this after the pub, sorry guys :(
 
You are inspecting and testing the installation and comparing that installation to the current regulations and making a professional assessment of whether the installation is safe for continued use, the date it was installed is immaterial, it may help you to realise why some things have been done the way that have but that is all.

You can mention on the covering letter or the current state of the installation that this was installed at the time of 17th edition AMD2 and does not comply, however this is not a reason for changing codes, it does not become less safe because it was built yesterday instead of twenty years ago.
 
Richard Burns said:
You are inspecting and testing the installation and comparing that installation to the current regulations and making a professional assessment of whether the installation is safe for continued use, the date it was installed is immaterial, it may help you to realise why some things have been done the way that have but that is all.

You can mention on the covering letter or the current state of the installation that this was installed at the time of 17th edition AMD2 and does not comply, however this is not a reason for changing codes, it does not become less safe because it was built yesterday instead of twenty years ago.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the rapid response.

Thats what i thought but just feels a bit odd.

Whilst i have your attention how would you grade..

Supply tails over 3m without switched fuse and incorrectly supported? (not armoured)?

Thanks
 
From what you have outlined it's an unsatisfactory install. After all it's New so the latest regs apply.
 
Are the tails unlikely to be damaged in any way, e.g. if they run over three meters inside a cupboard and away from anything being pushed against them or hit then they are probably safe and I would code as C3, if they are on an exposed wall in a hallway then they would be a higher risk, non complaint with the regulations and DNO preferences so perhaps a C2, the lack of support would be a C3 for me as I would not really anticipate any fault from tails hanging, so long as they were not pulling straight out of the terminals.
 
I'm assuming that this inspection is to satisfy BCO to get them to issue a completion certificate? Under that situation, I think what I'd be tempted to do would be to code everything as you see fit, make a long list of all the things which are not up to current regs but not necessarily unsafe, and then pick up the phone and have a chat with the BC officer. Tell him that it's fundamentally un/safe (whichever is your finding) but that it's not as it should be and let them make the decision as to what to do about it. They won't be interested in a technical discussion as they simply don't understand our regs, but they will be interested in knowing if something is very/mostly/maybe/no-way safe. They are already on the back-foot as the law says they need to see an EIC, not an EICR (although most are sensible about this).
 
To be honest as these are New Builds there should be no C2s and C3s anywhere on the installation. If there are, there is absolutely no excuse for them to exist, especially no CPC at light fittings/pendants and switches. No fan isolators being provided should be telling you something. To my mind all deficiencies and omissions found on a New Build should be rectified at the installers cost. Putting limitations on accessories and or usage on a New Build is a total nonsense....
 
brewlab said:
So basically my question is.....if an installation has been completed to the 17th edition when doing an eicr does the install have to meet all the current regs to get a satisfactory result or is it inspected/tested upon its actual condition?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Sounds like the job is one great big F up, with a saunter of cowboys riding around!
 
As Engineer says this is a absolute joke. Its a new build everything should be up to current regs with no limitations.Tell your friend its upto him to put things right and its his own fault for using a unqualified builder to do the electrics on this project. Ridiculous.
 
I think I would be walking away - fast - and pretending I hadn't seen it! ....... but ...



.................. I'm a plumber. :)
 
Get the builder back, drag him back by his balls if necessary. Make sure Building Control have an officer there at the same time, give builder your report telling him to put it right at his own expense and get LABC to prosecute.
Get your councillor involved and the local press. Kick up a stink about it, write to your MP.
Make sure something happens to this clown.
How the hell can someone put a building up without involving LABC? They must have been involved somewhere along the line. Someone has dropped the ball on this, they should be made to make sure it's picked up without any cost to the home owner (unless they were in on the whole load of **** in the first place)
A new build failing to meet current regs? I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.
 
trev said:
Get the builder back, drag him back by his balls if necessary. Make sure Building Control have an officer there at the same time, give builder your report telling him to put it right at his own expense and get LABC to prosecute.
Get your councillor involved and the local press. Kick up a stink about it, write to your MP.
Make sure something happens to this clown.
How the hell can someone put a building up without involving LABC? They must have been involved somewhere along the line. Someone has dropped the ball on this, they should be made to make sure it's picked up without any cost to the home owner (unless they were in on the whole load of **** in the first place)
A new build failing to meet current regs? I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.
Click to expand...

Gan on son ..... Gerrim telt!!!! ;)
 
There's been a few examples of this lately and I'm bloody sick of them. How can LABC issue a completion certificate without electrical certification?
It's just not possible!
If it's happened either someone has lied their way through things or LABC have not got a bloody clue what they're doing and therefore are unfit for purpose.
 
trev said:
There's been a few examples of this lately and I'm bloody sick of them. How can LABC issue a completion certificate without electrical certification?
It's just not possible!
If it's happened either someone has lied their way through things or LABC have not got a bloody clue what they're doing and therefore are unfit for purpose.
Click to expand...


Anything is possible if you chuck enough moolah at it.
 
But none of that is the job of an electrician. Yes, I'm in complete agreement that it's a bunch of pants and shouldn't be happening, but it's not the job of the OP to go stringing a builder up, that's what BC get paid for.
 
Rockingit said:
But none of that is the job of an electrician. Yes, I'm in complete agreement that it's a bunch of pants and shouldn't be happening, but it's not the job of the OP to go stringing a builder up, that's what BC get paid for.
Click to expand...
I agree but if not him then who? The home owner is the obvious choice but the OP has a more detailed technical knowledge so his input would be understood (and probably ignored) by BC
 
If that's what you have found on the service what is hidden, you said that you could not get to junction boxes so have they been terminated correctly. A loose connection in one of them and you have a fire on your hands + if its a new build I don't think you would get away with an EICR in needs to be and installation cert that you can not do because you did not installed it (Catch 22), as said its a new install so should be no coding any deviations should be rectified before the installation is put into service. I agree With Trev Get the Builder back
 
Thought Part P was introduced to stop unqualified builders doing their own electrics. Yeh seems to be working well. :rolleyes:
 
brewlab said:
Hello folks got a quick couple of questions regarding some testing i have recently undertaken.

Im doing an EICR for a friend on a couple of new build flats where the electrics were done by an unqualified builder.

If the install should be done to current regs are things like missing earths at pendants/switchs or no fan isolators a c2 or c3.

Sense tells me a c3 (with a note on the board about no metal light switchs or fiitings) but its a new build where everything should be done to current regs so does that make it a c2?

Theres no chance of connecting the earths as they are burried in a JB somewhere unreachable.

So basically my question is.....if an installation has been completed to the 17th edition when doing an eicr does the install have to meet all the current regs to get a satisfactory result or is it inspected/tested upon its actual condition?

FYI there are numerous small issues that dont really warrant a C2 but at the same time are certainly not up to current regs.

Shouldnt be doing this after the pub, sorry guys :(
Click to expand...

I'm sorry mate, but if you think a brand new install, with no continuity on the CPC for a lighting circuit it a C3 you shouldn't be doing EICR's.

Simple answer is code up the C2's & C3's - issue unsatisfactory report with your invoice and walk away.
 
An EICR is not for new installs, read the regulations they are quite clear about that!

If you did not carry out the work and are only carrying out the testing then you use a full EIC which has seperate places for designer, constructor and tester to sign.
The person who installed it signs for their part of the work and you sign for your part.

However if you have been employed purely to make a list of what is wrong then that is exactly what you do. Go there with pen and paper and write down everything that is wrong, then type it up and submit it.

And as Trev has said, kick up as big a sh*t storm as you can about it!
 
davesparks said:
An EICR is not for new installs, read the regulations they are quite clear about that!

If you did not carry out the work and are only carrying out the testing then you use a full EIC which has seperate places for designer, constructor and tester to sign.
The person who installed it signs for their part of the work and you sign for your part.

However if you have been employed purely to make a list of what is wrong then that is exactly what you do. Go there with pen and paper and write down everything that is wrong, then type it up and submit it.

And as Trev has said, kick up as big a sh*t storm as you can about it!
Click to expand...


could not have put it better than that.
 
Dave, you make an interesting point with which I agree; however in my experience ( more to do with rewires than new build) more often it is an EICR which is done because the "installer" is nowhere to be found. Typically the relevant council official will accept the EICR in lieu of the missing EIC - this because they too are interested primarily in safety. Of course, it also allows for Limitations which you can't have on an EIC.
 
davesparks said:
An EICR is not for new installs, read the regulations they are quite clear about that!

If you did not carry out the work and are only carrying out the testing then you use a full EIC which has seperate places for designer, constructor and tester to sign.
The person who installed it signs for their part of the work and you sign for your part.

However if you have been employed purely to make a list of what is wrong then that is exactly what you do. Go there with pen and paper and write down everything that is wrong, then type it up and submit it.

And as Trev has said, kick up as big a sh*t storm as you can about it!
Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting concept for such an awful installation - I doubt very much that the muppet who did the work will willing give their details, nor sign for the design and construction!
 
Murdoch said:
Now that's an interesting concept for such an awful installation - I doubt very much that the muppet who did the work will willing give their details, nor sign for the design and construction!
Click to expand...

Then there will be no valid EIC for the work and building control will have to take action!
 
polo1 said:
Dave, you make an interesting point with which I agree; however in my experience ( more to do with rewires than new build) more often it is an EICR which is done because the "installer" is nowhere to be found. Typically the relevant council official will accept the EICR in lieu of the missing EIC - this because they too are interested primarily in safety. Of course, it also allows for Limitations which you can't have on an EIC.
Click to expand...

The regulations do not, as far as I know, stipulate that a council bod can decide whether an EICR can replace an EIC or not.

I know what is usually done, and what people accept as the norm, but I am not a sheep who just follows the crowd without thinking.

This is the attitude which is destroying the trade as we have known it!
 
My LABC have very clearly laid their cards on the table with this - EIC's only, no reports, and when you are at the planning stage of the project you have to declare your electrical contractor.
 
davesparks said:
The regulations do not, as far as I know, stipulate that a council bod can decide whether an EICR can replace an EIC or not.

I know what is usually done, and what people accept as the norm, but I am not a sheep who just follows the crowd without thinking.

This is the attitude which is destroying the trade as we have known it!
Click to expand...

Its more about if Building Control will accept an EICR in lieu of an EIC, to then allow them to grant Building Warrant; they are not passing judgement on BS7671. I get your frustration over how the system works, but IMHO it's never going to go down the Gas Safe route (and even there, there's lots of poor practice/ non registered guys).
 
An electrician should not be issuing an EICR in lieu of an EIC!
We are the people with the skills and knowledge to decide what is right or wrong, LABC are not!
 

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Green 2 Go Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses Heating 2 Go
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Advert

YOUR Unread Posts

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Receive a daily, weekly, or monthly email containing a digest of new and recently updated threads.

Thread Information

Title
Unusual predicament testing 17th Edt install
Prefix
N/A
Forum
Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
33

Thread Tags

Tags Tags
17th edition install testing unusual

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
brewlab,
Last reply from
polo1,
Replies
33
Views
4,673

Advert

TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server

Tilers | UK Tiling Forum | Tilers Forums | Find a Tiler
Plumbers Forums | Plumbing Advice | Gas Forum
Back
Top