Recent content by ColleyCibber

Hi, just wondering if anyone else out there owns a Di-LOG DL9110? I've recently bought one new and it has an odd behaviour where if left turned on but idle for (exactly) five minutes following a test, it automatically powers itself off. You might say this doesn't seem odd at all, but it's not...

Sorry, well spotted, it's p.428 that says the same thing for EICRs. Yes it says where inadequacies are encountered it is recommended the person ordering the report informs the appropriate authority - it doesn't say do this instead of recording an outcome on the Inspection Schedule 1.1-1.6.

So I gather, and with respect mind your own business  :-) 

I think my difficulty is with the bit of 7671 that says it's within scope because intake equipment including service head and cable requires inspection on an EICR. p419.  As has been pointed out there is no one unambiguous answer, 7671 appears internally inconsistent with itself, and one could...

If the DNO says "You're right, it's iffy", then to me it's right to flag as Unsatisfactory until such time as resolved because, well, it is, - until resolved there should not be a report going to a buyer that suggests all is well with the electrics of their intended home when all is not well...

No, I understand that. I just want to see whether you'll stand on that position to the point of signing off as satisfactory within your scope an installation that you know taken as a whole is potentially dangerous. Bearing in mind that the recipient may not read anything other than the line that...

PS Assume you're absolutely broke, the client won't pay until you put the report in, and the only way there's going to be presents under the tree and a turkey on the dinner table is if they've paid you. :-)

Okay, well I respect your position on 1. But hopefully you can see why, in the face of the BPG4 guidance and the 1.1-1.6 boxes on the Condition Report Inspection Schedule, I differ? What would you do with your report in the meantime if the DNO dragged their heels endlessly about something in...

If you have put that as the agreed scope of your reporting then fine - don't see how you could argue that it gives a complete holistic view on the safety of the installation in use, but fine. But if not then BPG4 makes it clear that it's in scope and FI-able and I for one am not going to ignore...

PS I would say that a supplier's neutral that can stop being the neutral because there's a fuse that can blow is an important characteristic of a supply. 

Eggsactly. So you either stand on ceremony clutching BS7671 saying "Not in scope!" and pretend you can't see something that might reasonably bring scope for danger, or you consider your duty of care in terms of a holistic approach to the safety of the installation (and maybe ask yourself if you...

We need to be clear in our thinking here. There are two entirely separate points :- 1. Is the network operator supply within the scope of the report in terms of being able to FI? 2. If so, is a suspected possible fused neutral in the supply head legitimate FI? I'm open to having a discussion...

Please explain then why best practice guide 4 tells you to code it FI where appropriate then, if it's outwith the scope of the report.

The Electrical Safety First best practice guide 4 on EICR coding specifically lists one of the example uses of FI as flagging up deficiency in the network operator's supply.  You can have a conversation about what may or may not constitute an FI, but the point that you can and where appropriate...

Which sort of tallies with my point, I think? - call an apparent deficiency that you've revealed an apparent deficiency, but it needs to be apparent ("seeming real or true, but not necessarily so").