EICR 's on old versions of the Regs.

[Evans Electric]

Picking up on Intamixxe's  question earlier.  

What is the correct way to go about doing these?

Scenario :- 

Installation is in good condition , not been messed about with by DIY Dave etc BUT was done to the 15th edition , say.

Now , as with all the other editions, the 15th was the bees knees ..........in it's day. 

So we are looking at :-

1)  A plastic board    in excellent condition .

2)  Its a Split load ...half MCB only, half 30mA RCD protected .

3)  Cable colours are Red/Black   earth wires are Green but no stripe. 

4) Buried cables not backed by RCD.

Or .

Its done to the 16th ...  board is still made of plastic .

Cable colours may or may not conform to EU .

Both editions deemed to be safe to use ...possibly...  by the same people / department who now demand a higher standard.

Thing is .... do we pass off a perfectly good 16th edition install as "Satisfactory "  because it meets the regs of the time ...or is it NOT Satisfactory because its not to the 17th edition  + Amd 3 .

 

[Andy™]

its always tested to current edition, so a good install to 16th may have a few C3's but would be mainly satisfactory

 

[kerching]

In my opinion this is why C4 should never have been done away with. 

Insurance Companies seem to see a C3 as 'has to be done'...and this is the imoression given by some unscrupulous Sparks

just saying

 

[Evans Electric]

Agree with the C4  .... it also gave the option of saying ..yes I noticed that but its not the end of the world , it wouldn't be like that today but move on.

Reason for this post ,  I'm hearing loads of condemnations of anything that is NOT 17th edition .  Do they not think that ,  say,  on the 2nd  of January  2016 ...EVERY plastic board in the country becomes a C1 and should  be ripped out immediately. 

When on the 31st Dec 2015  they were all fine . 

Wholesaler seemed to have gone OTT with the boards .  I was after a metal single phase board for a small unit ,  with an SWA & some conduits in it .       Have one of these .  No its a domestic one with a load of square /oblong KOs in it ...I need 20mm KOs .  There were none to be had.  

 

[ProDave]

I installed a BG 13 way metal "domestic" CU recently and it had a nice row top and bottom of 20mm round knock outs, plus  a couple of larger ones.

I will use that one again.  If the "wholesalers" can't supply you, use electicfix etc. no shame in that.

Back to topic, I did the remedials after someone else did the eicr. He had put C2 for lack or rcd protection to lights amongst other gems.

 

[Essex1]

Picking up on Intamixxe's  question earlier.  

What is the correct way to go about doing these?

Scenario :- 

Installation is in good condition , not been messed about with by DIY Dave etc BUT was done to the 15th edition , say.

Now , as with all the other editions, the 15th was the bees knees ..........in it's day. 

So we are looking at :-

1)  A plastic board    in excellent condition .

2)  Its a Split load ...half MCB only, half 30mA RCD protected .

3)  Cable colours are Red/Black   earth wires are Green but no stripe. 

4) Buried cables not backed by RCD.

Or .

Its done to the 16th ...  board is still made of plastic .

Cable colours may or may not conform to EU .

Both editions deemed to be safe to use ...possibly...  by the same people / department who now demand a higher standard.

Thing is .... do we pass off a perfectly good 16th edition install as "Satisfactory "  because it meets the regs of the time ...or is it NOT Satisfactory because its not to the 17th edition  + Amd 3 .

All of the examples you give are C3 recommendations and would not warrant an 'unsatisfactory' comment on the EICR. 

 

[Manator]

Any testing carried out should always be to current standards. Its not that any previous standards are going to meet that, but rather to ensure that the procedures are the same universally.

A tester should be fully knowledgeable on any previous standards that he is likely to encounter. One of the reasons why Sidewinder has built his own library of past regulation books. This is so that even when tested against current regulations, any deviations from those regulations the install was completed under, can be identified.

I have seen posts that have identified that a plastic consumer unit could be fitted on the 31st of December, and be fully compliant. Then on the 1st of January be coded as a C3.

What if the install was completed on the 31st of December, but tested and certificate issued on the 1st of January?

In my view it is fully compliant as it was installed to a previous standard.

I believe that a C4 code should be reinstalled into the standards. I have started to write a statement into my EICR's to the words of "although this installation does not meet the current standards to which it is tested, no adverse safety aspects were found to warrant any remedial actions being taken to bring this installation up to the current regulations."

 

[Evans Electric]

Good point from Maneater there .     I was picked up on putting ...." Installation conforms to the 16th edition "  on an EICR .

We are not the only ones with this dilema , Gas installers seem to have many diverse versions of their regs . 

I've known many customers tell me of a gas fitter turning up and condemning their fire ...even though they had fitted the thing in the first place .   Reason ...."The regs have changed "     Another popular one with gas is that all of a sudden... after many years ...a fitter claims that an air brick must be fitted and he,s shutting the gas fire down until it is.  

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

I got an email just now from a client who has had an insurance assessor check over a property. The  passage below has been sent to me & to arrange a visit

"From our limited surface level inspection the electrical system is aging, inadequate, possibly

defective and requires upgrading.

The applicant must obtain an Electrical Installation Condition

Report on the whole of the electrical installation from an NICEIC approved Contractor to ascertain

the works required to bring the system up to the current British Standards. A copy of the appropriate

certification should be provided to the lender upon completion of the works."

Although i note it has the usual "must be an NICEIC contractor" please ignore that here, I posted that as the insurance company is not interested in previous regs or if its safe, but to make it correct to current regulations. Although you can argue if this is right or wrong,  i have been instructed to check its up to current  regs & if not make it.

 

[Doc Hudson]

Possibly we are drifting from the objective of an electrical inspection. It is not an exercise to hunt round an installation to see how many discrepancies between installed regs and current regs we can find.  It is to establish if an installation is electrically safe. The satisfactory/unsatisfactory summary on the EICR is your assessment of the installation in terms of its suitability for continued use. (box E on the model form). Obviously there is also the consideration of what the client is asking for, no inspection is 100% of the whole installation, there are limitations to the extent of work done. Or as Slipshod’s example shows, is the client asking to verify electrical safety or compliance with current regs. 

Any potential dangers found  when inspecting and testing will be referenced to the current regs guidance, not the regs they were installed to (which you may not actually know). But if you don't consider an installation to be immediately or potentially dangerous or in need of improvement  then you have no need to make an observation. One problem with the old Code4 is almost every PIR on an older installation could have a list of numerous C4’s  which have no relevance to any electrical safety issues and do not make the installation unsatisfactory. When the key thing we need to know is are there any significant dangerous aspects that make the installation unsatisfactory for ongoing use. The code scenarios in Best practice guide 4, are examples to assist selecting which code you may want to allocate to an observation you consider dangerous. Now if you don’t consider something dangerous then you have no need to make an observation or allocate a code. The opening page of the best practice guide clearly states that installations done to older editions of BS7671 may not be unsafe or need upgrading. So this talk of an installation done 6 months ago suddenly becoming dangerous due to regs amendment is just daft.

I may be wrong but I would guess many PIR's or EICR's have lots of information that is irrelevant to the client or the safety of the installation and could have been made much clearer and easy to understand if a bit more focus on genuine dangers was adopted.  Keep things simple, if by your judgment the installation is satisfactory then stand by your assessment and don't bother listing numerous items that are not dangerous. Assuming you are competent and have suitable PI  insurance then get on and sign the declaration box G and hand the report to the client.  Keep the basics in mind, ask yourself are any people, property or livestock going to be endangered if the installation is kept in its current state with no improvements?  

Doc H

 

[Sidewinder]

If, you search back in the archives of the forum, I said that insurance companies would become our "friends" in this many moons ago.

Their risk their rules, they were hit hard by the financial crash, so they are looking for reasons not to pay out claims.

Non-compliance of installations with the current version of BS7671 is one, if they write this into the T's & C's of the policy, then the policy holder has no choice.

It is also doubtful that any court would level this as an unfair term of contract, because they would view it as increased safety, thus, it would be viewed as a good thing.

 

[Adrian]

Possibly we are drifting from the objective of an electrical inspection. It is not an exercise to hunt round an installation to see how many discrepancies between installed regs and current regs we can find.  It is to establish if an installation is electrically safe. The satisfactory/unsatisfactory summary on the EICR is your assessment of the installation in terms of its suitability for continued use. (box E on the model form). Obviously there is also the consideration of what the client is asking for, no inspection is 100% of the whole installation, there are limitations to the extent of work done. Or as Slipshod’s example shows, is the client asking to verify electrical safety or compliance with current regs. 

Any potential dangers found  when inspecting and testing will be referenced to the current regs guidance, not the regs they were installed to (which you may not actually know). But if you don't consider an installation to be immediately or potentially dangerous or in need of improvement  then you have no need to make an observation. One problem with the old Code4 is almost every PIR on an older installation could have a list of numerous C4’s  which have no relevance to any electrical safety issues and do not make the installation unsatisfactory. When the key thing we need to know is are there any significant dangerous aspects that make the installation unsatisfactory for ongoing use. The code scenarios in Best practice guide 4, are examples to assist selecting which code you may want to allocate to an observation you consider dangerous. Now if you don’t consider something dangerous then you have no need to make an observation or allocate a code. The opening page of the best practice guide clearly states that installations done to older editions of BS7671 may not be unsafe or need upgrading. So this talk of an installation done 6 months ago suddenly becoming dangerous due to regs amendment is just daft.

I may be wrong but I would guess many PIR's or EICR's have lots of information that is irrelevant to the client or the safety of the installation and could have been made much clearer and easy to understand if a bit more focus on genuine dangers was adopted.  Keep things simple, if by your judgment the installation is satisfactory then stand by your assessment and don't bother listing numerous items that are not dangerous. Assuming you are competent and have suitable PI  insurance then get on and sign the declaration box G and hand the report to the client.  Keep the basics in mind, ask yourself are any people, property or livestock going to be endangered if the installation is kept in its current state with no improvements?  

Doc H

Good post Doc. I do a lot of eicr and I only list the dangers . as a rule I code things on the number of actions required to receive a shock  so a code 1 would be exposed parts .no bonding code 2 ect. Plastic Consumer unit not coded .

 

[Andy™]

It is also doubtful that any court would level this as an unfair term of contract, because they would view it as increased safety, thus, it would be viewed as a good thing.

but is 'increased safety'? we all know its only modern-ish CU's that are catching fire...

new regs are not retrospective either. its unreasonable to alter all wiring to current regs at each change, which could easily be argued as unfair term of contract

 

[Sidewinder]

Andy,

It will never be found an unfair term of contract, why, because there is money involed in the "City", thus the cost and burden will always be placed on the individual & the employer, outside "the City".

 

[Andy™]

if it was for me, id just write an EICR thats safisfactory and do the I&T from outside... cant see any faults, cant note them...

 

[binky]

i use un-coded observations as a replacement for C4s. As far as I'm aware obseravtions without codes is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Essex1]

i use un-coded observations as a replacement for C4s. As far as I'm aware obseravtions without codes is perfectly acceptable.

Not sure if I agree. If it is in the latest edition of BS7671 but not present in the installation I think it warrants a code. Emergency lighting or smoke detectors would warrant a no code as they do not fall under 7671. 

 

[Murdoch]

Not sure if I agree. If it is in the latest edition of BS7671 but not present in the installation I think it warrants a code. Emergency lighting or smoke detectors would warrant a no code as they do not fall under 7671. 

Quite correct but if they are fitted I always test them and comment if required..

 

[Doc Hudson]

If, you search back in the archives of the forum, I said that insurance companies would become our "friends" in this many moons ago.

Their risk their rules, they were hit hard by the financial crash, so they are looking for reasons not to pay out claims.

Non-compliance of installations with the current version of BS7671 is one, if they write this into the T's & C's of the policy, then the policy holder has no choice.

It is also doubtful that any court would level this as an unfair term of contract, because they would view it as increased safety, thus, it would be viewed as a good thing.

This raises another area of vagueness, grey-areas and confusion, between private domestic installations and commercial installations. How can the average domestic homeowner be expected to have any idea if their electrical installation meets current regs or what current regs require, when there is no legal obligation to have any formal inspection and testing carried out.  Industrial and commercial installations will have other statute laws obliging them to keep their electrics safe and routinely checked, so they should know if anything is amiss. I am not aware of anything in our home insurance requiring the wiring to be checked or kept up to current standards. Yet some large domestic installation could easily be more demanding than some small commercial installations. Large country house swimming pool in garden, numerous en-suit bathrooms with electric showers, big kitchen, underfloor electric heating, sockets here there and everywhere. Compared with a small shop or office, employing 5 people, mostly computers and cash till, small water boiler in kitchen area for making tea with fridge and toaster. less than a dozen double sockets and a handful of lights.

Risks and dangers are not just the electrical installation itself or its compliance with a certain edition of the regs, it is also who will be reasonably expected to use that installation. A small minority of close family friends or invited guests, compared to an open ended quantity of members of the public with unknown and unquantifiable level of common sense. A small domestic dwelling converted to become a coffee shop, baking home made cakes becomes a very different ball game when doing a periodic inspection, even though 95% of the circuits may be the same with the same consumer unit supplying everything. And the insurance liabilities and obligations would be very different.

Doc H