what code

[bigspark17]

Well if you give a c2 for shower installed correctly to the regs at that time, all tests relevant to that circuit test ok, bonding is in place and if manufacturers instruction dont stipulate rcd protection req thats is not correct assesment and i would back the customer in not paying for ur inacurate eicr and you would not get paid for that test! You cannot give that unsatisfactory condition just because you would prefere it.! By all means c3 it i would also c3 it but defo not a c2!

 

[Risteard]

Well if you give a c2 for shower installed correctly to the regs at that time

As I keep telling you whether it was allowed at the time or not is completely and utterly irrelevant to periodic inspection and testing - whether it is safe to remain in service when assessed against the requirements of BS 7671:2008 (2015) is the only consideration.

Incidentally, I can almost guarantee that the manufacturer clearly stated that it must be protected by a 30mA RCD.

all tests relevant to that circuit test ok

Inspection is more important than testing - and by inspection I can see that it isn't RCD protected. And an RCD test is a relevant test for such a circuit so not sure how you claim that that would have "tested OK".

i would back the customer in not paying for ur inacurate eicr and you would not get paid for that test!

I most certainly would be paid, and would also sue for being accused of compiling an inaccurate report when I hadn't.

You cannot give that unsatisfactory condition just because you would prefere it.!

But I can give one where I find something which I consider to be unsatisfactory. To suggest otherwise is grossly incorrect.

 

[bigspark17]

Quote by risturd-- As I keep telling you whether it was allowed at the time or not is completely and utterly irrelevant to periodic inspection and testing - whether it is safe to remain in service when assessed against the requirements of BS 7671:2008 (2015) is the only consideration.

so next year are you going to be telling every1 all there plastic 17th edition dual rcd boards need changing to metal???????

 

[Risteard]

Why can you not accept that we are assessing an installation for continued safety? We are not trying to draw up a list of what used to be allowed.

Who cares what was allowed by the 1st Edition of the Wiring Regulations (other than out of interest); or the 8th Edition; or the 14th Edition?

What we are interested in is to what extent deviations from the Wiring Regulations as they stand now might impact upon the safety of the installation.

Not everything which does not comply with the IET Wiring Regulations is equally dangerous. Some things might pose a considerable risk whilst others might be so insignificant that they are not even worthy of mention on the Report. This is what periodic inspection and testing and the issuance of an Electrical Installation Condition Report is all about.

It isn't a test of your knowledge of withdrawn Regulations. What would be the benefit of that?

 

[Farmelectrics]

interesting debate I started it so ill end it code 3 is the winner lol

 

[Risteard]

interesting debate I started it so ill end it code 3 is the winner lol

Remember that this is a risk transfer from the client to you. That is why I would not be happy with suggesting to the client that all was hunky dorey the way that it was.

Observations in a periodic inspection are at the sole discretion of the Inspector (so-called Best Practice Guides etc. cannot think for you, nor do they hold any basis in law), so by all means use a C3 observation against it if you feel that it is appropriate but I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I never said that I considered that to be particularly dangerous. I just stated that it is not relevant whether something was ever compliant or not - what is relevant is whether it is satisfactory to remain in service. That isn't the same thing.

It is relevant.
In the introduction in every edition is the statement:
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."
This effectively means that unless you can show that at the time of construction a particular instance did not comply with the edition in force at the time of design, or that there has been dangerous deterioration or damage, you cannot (if you wish to comply with BS 7617) report the particular instance as being either immediately or potentially unsafe.
To do so would effectively mean that your inspection was not carried out in accordance with the requirements of BS 7671.

 

[Hellmooth]

Well i disagree you are testing for continued safe use of the installation, so you would code lighting circuits with no rcd installed to 16th ed a c2.???

a C3 would be appropriate it's a recommendation

 

[Farmelectrics]

enough I said ha ha

 

[bigspark17]

I mean you just keep repeating yourself risteard! We know what youre trying to say but you are wrong and you cannot seem to accept that.! This is a forum were all here because we all care and want to do the work to best of our ability abd to share knowledge and experiences! How can something installed to regs work fine and safely for 20 yrs and one day you turn up and fail it because you prefer it done another way! We all would prefer to see rcd on showers and im sure we all do on our indtalls! But this instance you cannot give a c2 (unsatisfactory teport) it is not an accurate eicr END OF!!!

 

[Hellmooth]

Miaow!!!

 

[Blademan_98]

I have found this very interesting as I am taking my EAL periodic inspection test on Saturday
Cheers
B

 

[Simonslimline]

Out of interest, where do people stand on the changing oz Zs max values? For instance say you are carrying out an EICR and a final circuits Zs is not compliant with the new values but complies with the permited value it was installed to? c3?

 

[Lucien Nunes]

I don't do domestic and have never installed a shower, although I have examined inside a few of them. My own personal opinion is that certain units were never sufficiently protected without an RCD and that users were exposed to a greater risk of severe shock than I was comfortable with, even when additional protection by RCD was not mandatory. I would not have installed one without, and would not pass by the opportunity to encourage in the strongest terms the benefit of upgrading one with an RCD via an EICR.

In this situation, I would probably code it C3 but direct the reader to an explanation that the benefit of adding an RCD is very real in this particular case, as opposed to a mere act of achieving compliance on paper as it might be with a cable buried 45mm deep. If I could find any evidence of deterioration or likelihood of water ingress into the shower, even if the test results were good, I would consider a C2.

 

[Hellmooth]

Out of interest, where do people stand on the changing oz Zs max values? For instance say you are carrying out an EICR and a final circuits Zs is not compliant with the new values but complies with the permited value it was installed to? c3?

C2 as it doesn't comply with current regs.

 

[Hellmooth]

Or further investigation needed, but it is unsatisfactory in reality.

 

[Risteard]

This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

Ergo, it also doesn't necessarily mean that they are safe for continued use or don't require upgrading. That is implicit in the word "necessarily".

Nowhere is it stated that compliance with a previous Edition guarantees that it is safe, just that it might not be unsafe.

 

[Risteard]

But this instance you cannot give a c2 (unsatisfactory teport) it is not an accurate eicr END OF!!!

I most certainly can and there is nothing inaccurate about it. Your opinion is only an opinion. It doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes, the fact that any installation complied at the time of designe and construction is no guarantee that it is safe or even complies now.
However if there has been no deterioration, damage or other reason which would cause a danger, then there is no valid reason for considering an installation to be unsafe.
I should also point out that there is no time limit for constructing an installation following design.
I personally know of a number of installations completed in April 2014 which was designed to the 16th edition, some 6 years after the 17th was introduced.
According to your opinion, they were unsafe before they were even completed.

 

[Risteard]

According to your opinion, they were unsafe before they were even completed.

I didn't say that so don't pretend that I did. I said that just because it complied at the time of construction doesn't necessarily mean that it is safe by today's standards.

That doesn't mean that I said that it won't be safe - just that aspects MIGHT NOT be.

MIGHT NOT BE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DEFINITELY ISN'T (OR DEFINITELY IS).

Honestly, it's very simple English.

It depends on the specifics of the installation.

 

[bigspark17]

Quote by risturd.- MIGHT NOT BE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DEFINITELY ISN'T (OR DEFINITELY IS).

What on earth are you on about, seriously.? I toatally agree with spin london! You are saying if it was compliant then it isntbcompliant now, so as ive stated before you will deem plastic consumer units next year a c2.!!!! Dont you see its the same thing.???

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I didn't say that so don't pretend that I did. I said that just because it complied at the time of construction doesn't necessarily mean that it is safe by today's standards.

That doesn't mean that I said that it won't be safe - just that aspects MIGHT NOT be.

MIGHT NOT BE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DEFINITELY ISN'T (OR DEFINITELY IS).

Honestly, it's very simple English.

It depends on the specifics of the installation.

You can't have it both ways.
You have stated categorically that would apply a code C2 where a shower is not protected by an RCD.
BS 7671 informs us that an installation with a code C2 would be unsatisfactory.
As the whole point of conducting an inspection is to determine whether an installation is safe for continued use, any code which results in an unsatisfactory determination is effectively deeming the installation as being unsafe.

 

[Blademan_98]

My house does not have any RCD's in it. It was built in the 1960's and wired in black & red T&E.
80A CU that has 4 circuits, 2 x 32A and 2 x 6A.
In readyness for my exam tomorrow I am going to do a full EICR on it today
From this discussion I am confused about how I should code the entire thing now!
Cheers
B

 

[telectrix]

My house does not have any RCD's in it. It was built in the 1960's and wired in black & red T&E.
80A CU that has 4 circuits, 2 x 32A and 2 x 6A.
In readyness for my exam tomorrow I am going to do a full EICR on it today
From this discussion I am confused about how I should code the entire thing now!
Cheers
B

easy.
1. are there any immediate dangers of shock or fire? if not no C1's.
2. are there any potential dangers? if not no C2's.
3. anytrhing that does not comply with current regs. or you think requires improvement, the C3's.

 

[Octopus]

easy.
1. are there any immediate dangers of shock or fire? if not no C1's.
2. are there any potential dangers? if not no C2's.
3. anytrhing that does not comply with current regs. or you think requires improvement, the C3's.

Tel - stop confusing matters - you are applying logic and common sense!

 

[telectrix]

have to get some in before senility overtakes me.

 

[Octopus]

have to get some in before senility overtakes me.

the he stupid thing is that the powers to be are saying we have to give a C2 to a plastic cu if it's under the stairs from next January.

I think this is stupidly at best, panicking people at the worst.

a plastic CU should be a C3 from next year, irrespective of location. Simples

 

[Blademan_98]

easy.
1. are there any immediate dangers of shock or fire? if not no C1's.
2. are there any potential dangers? if not no C2's.
3. anytrhing that does not comply with current regs. or you think requires improvement, the C3's.

So on the appendix 6 model form, section 4 18/19 I should put C3 as there are no RCD's but the system should have them by current regulations? For an additional comment, is it acceptable just to put 'not to BS7671:2008 Amd 3'?
Thanks,
B

 

[andyb]

the he stupid thing is that the powers to be are saying we have to give a C2 to a plastic cu if it's under the stairs from next January.

I think this is stupidly at best, panicking people at the worst.

a plastic CU should be a C3 from next year, irrespective of location. Simples

Where have you seen that Murdoch?
That can't be right can it?, I would of thought a c3.

So on the appendix 6 model form, section 4 18/19 I should put C3 as there are no RCD's but the system should have them by current regulations? For an additional comment, is it acceptable just to put 'not to BS7671:2008 Amd 3'?
Thanks,
B

By putting any code you are saying that it is not to bs7671:2008, you don't have to keep repeating it.

 

[Blademan_98]

After going through my own notes and the IET recommendations I found the following:
2 Older installations designed prior to BS 7671:2008 may not have been provided with RCDs for additional
protection. The absence of such protection should as a minimum be given a code C3 classification (item 5.12).
So sorry for high jacking the thread
B

 

[Risteard]

You can't have it both ways.
You have stated categorically that would apply a code C2 where a shower is not protected by an RCD.
BS 7671 informs us that an installation with a code C2 would be unsatisfactory.
As the whole point of conducting an inspection is to determine whether an installation is safe for continued use, any code which results in an unsatisfactory determination is effectively deeming the installation as being unsafe.

I'm not "having it both ways". I am stating that that particular non-compliance renders the installation unsafe. That does not suggest that every other non-compliance would necessarily render it unsafe though.

How can you even claim that that is what I said?

 

[Octopus]

Where have you seen that Murdoch?
That can't be right can it?, I would of thought a c3.
it.

Can't immediately remember, it was on one of the 3 forums I think.

will think about it and see what I can find

 

[Richard Burns]

As the installation is being assessed for safety for continued use based on a comparison with the current version of the wiring regulations if there are no non conformances with the current edition of the wiring regulations by definition (The IET's definition) the installation cannot be unsafe.
Therefore there would be no code that could be applied.

Once there is a part of the installation that does not conform to the current edition of the wiring regulations it is then up to the inspector to assess the level of risk that this non conformance poses to the continued safety of operation.
There are guidelines presented from various sources providing recommendations, but these are merely an aid to the inspector to help them decide the appropriate level of risk.

The codes on the EICR form indicate that C1 is an immediate danger, C2 is a potential danger and C3 is improvement recommended.

Often these are described as danger immediately apparent such as exposed live conductors; danger in the case of a fault occurring on the installation;improvement of the installation is recommended to reduce a potential risk that is not present and will not present itself on a fault occurring. However this is not the statement on the form.
Tel's description puts it better than me.

A lack of RCD protection presents risk only on an earth fault and the inspector has to consider the risks of an earth fault occurring, the likelihood of contact with the earth fault and the physiological effects of that earth fault.
C1 and no code is not applicable as there is no immediate risk but there is a risk.
The level of risk is assessed by the inspector by considering the installation and the specific circumstances in order to determine is C2 or C3 is appropriate.

 

[HandySparks]

the he stupid thing is that the powers to be are saying we have to give a C2 to a plastic cu if it's under the stairs from next January.

I think this is stupidly at best, panicking people at the worst.

a plastic CU should be a C3 from next year, irrespective of location. Simples

ESF Best Practice Guide 4, issue 4, says plastic CUs get a C3 if under stairs or on a sole escape route. (And, by implication, no code if located elsewhere.)

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So on the appendix 6 model form, section 4 18/19 I should put C3 as there are no RCD's but the system should have them by current regulations? For an additional comment, is it acceptable just to put 'not to BS7671:2008 Amd 3'?
Thanks,
B

The type of comment I would make would be:
Lack of RCD protection for socket-outlets. Reg. No. xyz. Code C3.
Lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower. Reg. No. xyz. Code C3.
Lack of RCD protection for mobile equipment used outdoors. Reg. No. xyz. Code C2.
I would not explain why I have applied various codes on the form.

 

[Blademan_98]

The type of comment I would make would be:
Lack of RCD protection for socket-outlets. Reg. No. xyz. Code C3.
Lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower. Reg. No. xyz. Code C3.
Lack of RCD protection for mobile equipment used outdoors. Reg. No. xyz. Code C2.
I would not explain why I have applied various codes on the form.

Thanks for that explanation, I have spent the day revising for the exam. Whilst the training material gives examples of the various codes, it does not tell you how to fill in the fields.
The notes do say it is down to the inspector to make a judgement call for each condition, just not what to put!

Cheers
B

 

[Octopus]

ESF Best Practice Guide 4, issue 4, says plastic CUs get a C3 if under wooden staircase or on a sole escape route. (And, by implication, no code if located elsewhere.)

Nice one HandySparks! I've added the wooden reference as this is the actual wording!

Heres the link for anyone to read

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=e...al+safety+first+best+practice+guide+4+issue+4

 

[rattlehead85]

I can't understand for the life of me how there is so much confusion over coding. The BPG 4 sets it out in black and white what departure warrants what code. All this stems from people who don't have enough inspection and testing knowledge picking codes out of the air an applying them without a good explanation as to why they are using such coding methods. Truth be known half of them couldn't interpret test results correctly let alone attribute relevant coding.

 

[Risteard]

No guide book can tell an Inspector who has actually seen an installation how recommendations must be made.

It is clearly stated that these are at the discretion of the Inspector.

It shouldn't even be called a Best Practice Guide, but simply the Electrical Safety Council's or whoever's opinion. That is all that it is.

 

[rattlehead85]

That's why are industry is in the **** state it is and why 80% of properties you walk into after electrical works have been completed are nothing short of shambolic.