My first EICR

[welchyboy]

aren't you lucky, not going after these numpties week after week.!I see this all the time.

headbang

+1^

I had a call from an electrician who had worked for me, saying the house he rented out had been tested and inspected on change of tenancy by the management company and their electrical contractor had failed the installation, which he thought odd as he had done all the work himself.He emailed me the areas that needed to be corrected by said electrical contractor, which I found to be an absolute joke.

1. Downlights in kitchen (4 and 2 not working) should be replaced with fluorescent light, given Code 1.

2. 16mm

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

why?yes, it does matter what edition it was wired to,

why would all sockets that may be used outside need RCD protection? [pre edition]

when did RCD protection or all bathroom bonding become a requirement?

when did bathroom radiators need bonded?

when did bathroom lights need bonded?

when did lights need bonded to radiators in the bathroom become a requirement?

when did metal window frames not require to be bonded?

all Qs the 'competent' person should be asking himself,

and more.

All valid points, thats why i asked the questions rather than stated things maybe wrong.

 

[steptoe]

Sorry slips, reading that back it doesnt sound the way it was intended.

 

[MKS]

I need one of those 'Bang head here' That's all I have to write on the matter! :-(

 

[Zoro]

All standards have disappeared from the trade, the Scams don

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Maybe this is the wrong thread, a while ago i started one about grey areas in the regs, tests etc. Obviously lots of the 'faults' mentioned in reports in this thread are so wrong, others are down to interpretation.

One minute we are told that we are carrying out a test (and reporting ) to the current regulations, the next minute its ok to give a satisfactory result to an obviously not satisfactory installation just because its old :C

 

[Manator]

You are right in principle. The fact is, the only reason why any edition previous can not be deemed dangerous is a legal issue.

When installed it complied with the regulations at that time, and we are always told that the regulations are not retrospective, there is then a case for continuing to apply that edition to any new work.

For example we all know that any "new" work "has" to comply with current regulations, I would ask why? If the 16th edition was safe by definition then any work done to a 16th edition board, to the 16th edition must also not be dangerous.

Beggers belief sometimes but we have to bend and twist to the new stuff!

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

An installation that pre dates the 14th edition that has no bonding, no Rcd's, no sleevings & no Cpc'c on the lighting circuits (but all class 2 fittings) deems 'A Satisfactory' result on an inspection :_|

How long will it be till the 1000's of downlights i have fitted with round Jb's behind will be Unsatisfactory, just because some smartarse (i'm not jealous ) invented the Chocbox that has cable grips.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was made at 21:06 ----------

You are right in principle. The fact is, the only reason why any edition previous can not be deemed dangerous is a legal issue.Beggers belief sometimes but we have to bend and twist to the new stuff!

Just because the inspector thinks somethings not 'satisfactory' should not mean its dangerous ?

 

[Nicky Tesla]

why?yes, it does matter what edition it was wired to,

why would all sockets that may be used outside need RCD protection? [pre edition]

when did RCD protection or all bathroom bonding become a requirement?

when did bathroom radiators need bonded?

when did bathroom lights need bonded?

when did lights need bonded to radiators in the bathroom become a requirement?

when did metal window frames not require to be bonded?

all Qs the 'competent' person should be asking himself,

and more.

Its not that simple steps....The question for the competent person is,

"is the installation still considered safe enough today"

Would you feel happy knowing that the new tenant is a keen gardener and will be out cutting and trimming the grass in the large garden with 240v equipment and no RCD protection( an RCD socket near the door should cover it.), Not me, but i would be happy with a ground floor flat without rcd protection having a managed communal garden area, because the likelihood of accidents is diminished considerably

We know more than the industry did in the past and can therefore see dangers that can exist today which were not apparent before.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

I clicked the like button on that but many will say thats good workmanship and not the rules

 

[Steve3948]

Its not that simple steps....The question for the competent person is,"is the installation still considered safe enough today"

Would you feel happy knowing that the new tenant is a keen gardener and will be out cutting and trimming the grass in the large garden with 240v equipment and no RCD protection( an RCD socket near the door should cover it.), Not me, but i would be happy with a ground floor flat without rcd protection having a managed communal garden area, because the likelihood of accidents is diminished considerably

We know more than the industry did in the past and can therefore see dangers that can exist today which were not apparent before.

Still Code 3 though IMHO.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Wasn't a lack of rcd sockets for equipment outdoors etc a 2 with the old Pir ?

 

[Nicky Tesla]

Yes and thats what the NICEIC guide on codes says

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Yes and thats what the NICEIC guide on codes says

Thanks for confirming i wasnt going mad.

 

[Sharpend]

Thanks for confirming i wasnt going mad.

Judging by your CAR, we're too late!!!

 

[Steve3948]

Wasn't a lack of rcd sockets for equipment outdoors etc a 2 with the old Pir ?

The old Code 2 is the new Code 3

 

[park1]

Its simple

Code 1 Danger present

Code 2 Potentially dangerous

Code 3 Improvement recommended

We use the latest edition of BS 7671 to help us to produce a report on the condition of the installation. You need to understand the principles to produce that report, unfortunately many dont.

As for RCD protection for sockets where equipment may be used outside, well the old Code 2 could be a satisfactory or unsatisfactory hence the confusion, in my opinion a unsatisfactory code 2.

In my opinion it's a new Code 2.

It could be argued that in previous editions of the regulations there wasn't the abundance of electrical equipment for outside use, previous editions have acknowledged areas of increased risk and have implemented measures to reduce that risk.

Outside is a increased risk, how would you code a bathroom with no supplementary bonding in place to limit the touch voltage?

The risk is there, if someone dies and your report states a code 3, how do you think you will stand in court, based on the amount of equipment used outdoors now, i don't see previous editions saving your bacon, its potentially dangerous, report it to be the case.

 

[Steve3948]

Any socket that could be used for outdoor use should be protected by a 30mA Safety Device.

I go to so many houses where they have full RCD protection on the fuseboard yet still use RCD Plug Units or RCD plug in devices.

If you advice the customer that they have no RCD protection to sockets that could be used for outdoor use, and indicate improvement required, they have a choice of upgrading at fuseboard or installing RCD socket or using RCD plugs or adapters.

You have done your job, you don't fail an installation based on what you would like to see, they may never use outdoor electrical items.

Your job is to advise and report and not overreact by frightening the s**t out of them by failing an installation that providing all other test results comply etc, then code 3 and it's up to the customer to decided what they want to do, not you.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Nicky Tesla]

Agreed but is it potentially dangerous(which is code 2). Sometimes more than others. Just take a judgement on its potential use. Ive heard electricians say for example that "it needs RCD protection because an extension lead could potentially be put through an upstairs window to power say a car battery charger in the carpark"

Thats just nonsense

 

[sb_89]

It's a code 3 for me, advise them that an rcd would be beneficial and that's job done. It's hard to know how likely equipment is going to be used in a socket.