Was this the right decision for an EICR ?

[Evans Electric]

Asked to do an EICR  on a rental flat in the city ,  landlord is a neighbour, he,s reacting to the new law on testing rentals  .    I've done some work there before , kitchen refurb.  

I'd say 15th edition  , wiring red & black , all in good condition ,  a metal Bill Talisman board l board .......................but the nearest RCD  about 15 miles away .   Commercial , purpose built  apartments  . 

My question is :

I couldn't see any way of declaring the installation "Satisfactory "   without RCDs  .    The cost of fitting RCBOs  or pods to fit this board , at £50   to £70  each  was out of the question so we  agreed  to change the board  .   Was I correct in thinking that .   I know we are told to "Test to the 18th edition "    but how can anyone actually do that  if its not an brand new install . ?    

 

[Andy™]

I&T to current standards. if that means older installations now get C2's then so be it. about time landlords started getting their properties in a safe condition

 

[Murdoch]

I&T to current standards. if that means older installations now get C2's then so be it. about time landlords started getting their properties in a safe condition

Disagree 100%

If installations were installed to earlier editions of the regulations doesn't mean they are unsafe for continued use ..................

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrical-safety-standards-in-the-private-rented-sector-guidance-for-landlords-tenants-and-local-authorities/guide-for-landlords-electrical-safety-standards-in-the-private-rented-sector#the-report

Point 8 is worth reading

"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Wiring Regulations may not comply with the 18th edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

 

[ProDave]

I would say only sockets and a shower NEED RCD protection.

Could just those be upgraded without a complete CU change?

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Have there been no periodic inspections done since 2008?

The installation obviously existed then if you say it was probably installed to the 15th....

What was said on earlier reports about lack of RCD's for sockets rated <20A,

buried cables <50mm,   or circuits supplying bathrooms?

As these were required under 17th and should have been effective since July 2008?

Surely there would have been some previous "improvement recommendations" going back a few years now...?

Or...  Have there been no EICR's done "tested to the 17th edition"?

:C

It probably is about due to bring it up into the 21st century...

Or looking at it from another angle..

If this apartment was a student flat one of my kids was looking at renting whilst at Uni...

I would have suggested they look elsewhere if the property has no RCD protection.

opcorn

 

[Murdoch]

So a dwelling signed off to the 17th edition gets a C2 because out doesn't have a metal CU?

 

[Evans Electric]

Have there been no periodic inspections done since 2008?

As far as I know , yes,   no tests or checks have been carried out since new .  

I would say only sockets and a shower NEED RCD protection.

Could just those be upgraded without a complete CU change?

I see where you're coming from but theres also the "cables buried less than 50mm  to take on board .  

 

[ProDave]

As far as I know , yes,   no tests or checks have been carried out since new .  

I see where you're coming from but theres also the "cables buried less than 50mm  to take on board .  

But that would force a 16th edition board with no rcd on the lights to be replaced.  Do you REALLY think that is necessary on an otherwise perfect install?

 

[Evans Electric]

I&T to current standards. if that means older installations now get C2's then so be it. about time landlords started getting their properties in a safe condition

That is basically my question  ..........   perfectly good install , red & black wiring ,   all in good condition ,  an  original metal Bill Talisman  board ...but as I said , no RCDs.

Q.   Can you sign it off  as "Satisfactory "       You can't test & inspect it to the 18th  because it 's not installed to the 18th  .    On day one of the 18th coming into force  it means ALL the plastic boards  in the country would have to ripped out  for a start .  It makes no sense ,  they say test to the latest regs    , then add but an older install may be quite safe.  

 

[ProDave]

You can TEST it to current regs.

The question becomes what codes.

Plastic box C3?

No RCD on sockets or shower C2?

No RCD on lights C3?

No RCD on buried cables C3?

 

[Evans Electric]

Do you REALLY think that is necessary on an otherwise perfect install?

No not personally  , wouldn't bother me in the least   I'd just do a C3  on that  to show that I'd  observed it .   

Its this  " Inspect to the latest regs "  that gets me every time .....   a decision then has to be made by the tester whether the install is  "Satisfactory"      Some would call the lack of RCDs as a C2   some as a C3   .        Once C1 or C2  in mentioned , some action HAS to be taken .   

 

[Andy™]

Disagree 100%

If installations were installed to earlier editions of the regulations doesn't mean they are unsafe for continued use ..................

so a house wired in 1920 to the standards of the time and unmodified since is compliant then?

 

[Murdoch]

so a house wired in 1920 to the standards of the time and unmodified since is compliant then?

Show me a 1920's install that passes all the other tests and we can discuss it.

About 97% of the UK housing stock won't meet the 18th edition

 

[Murdoch]

That is basically my question  ..........   perfectly good install , red & black wiring ,   all in good condition ,  an  original metal Bill Talisman  board ...but as I said , no RCDs.

Q.   Can you sign it off  as "Satisfactory "       You can't test & inspect it to the 18th  because it 's not installed to the 18th  .    On day one of the 18th coming into force  it means ALL the plastic boards  in the country would have to ripped out  for a start .  It makes no sense ,  they say test to the latest regs    , then add but an older install may be quite safe.  

So make non compliance's as C3's

Makes you wonder who was "advising" the committee writing this up!

FWIW I would mark socket circuits as C2 in all situations except above ground floor flats

 

[Phoenix]

I must admit I'd find this one troubling, theres going to be a host of C3 issues as said, plastic board (possibly), no rcd to concealed cables, bathroom circuits, lighting etc but not would not make it unsatisfactory,  in most domestics though no RCD to sockets would be a C2 because they could be used outside, in a flat though? Logic says it should only be a C3, as they are not for outside use, but issuing a satisfactory for a rental with no RCD to the sockets makes me feel a bit un-easy. I think I'd suggest they went for one RCBO pod on the sockets circuit (assuming just one?) and a satsifactory report listing the other lacks of RCD as C3

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

I must admit I'd find this one troubling, theres going to be a host of C3 issues as said, plastic board (possibly), no rcd to concealed cables, bathroom circuits, lighting etc but not would not make it unsatisfactory,  in most domestics though no RCD to sockets would be a C2 because they could be used outside, in a flat though? Logic says it should only be a C3, as they are not for outside use, but issuing a satisfactory for a rental with no RCD to the sockets makes me feel a bit un-easy. I think I'd suggest they went for one RCBO pod on the sockets circuit (assuming just one?) and a satsifactory report listing the other lacks of RCD as C3

The sockets "used outside" perception is irrelevant,  as it was 411.3.3,  (Red Book), that required RCD for all sockets rated <20A, used by Ordinary people, for general use..

Which would include all sockets in flats even if they are seven floors up!   

[ Red book published Jan 2008, effective July 2008 ]

2020 - 2008 = 12 years ago..

{we are NOT talking about a recent change to the regs here}

It's one of those arguments where you have to consider a scenario when you have issued an EICR as satisfactory..

But then someone get seriously injured due to an electrical socket fault, where an RCD would have reduced/eliminated the injury... 

What is your defence to the prosecution who quote reg 411.3.3 at you?

:C

OR 

taking another perspective...

If Mr Landlord is a half-decent guy he may have been putting £5 per month from his rental profits on one side toward electrical maintenance..

so 12 years @ £5 per month would give him £720 in the kitty towards a few RCD's....

So he could end up with a bit of cash still in the account after a CU upgrade in 2020, following reg changes in 2008..

opcorn  

 

[Phoenix]

The sockets "used outside" perception is irrelevant,  as it was 411.3.3,  (Red Book), that required RCD for all sockets rated <20A, used by Ordinary people, for general use..

I'm not so sure its completely irrelevant, we know that that sockets being without RCD protection is non-compliant with today's regulations and has been for twelve years, so there is an issue to record, but by what metric do we use to decide what to code this as, we could look to earlier versions of the regs for a clue towards how to judge the factors that make it more (or less) of an issue, consider that for almost two decades you had to provide RCD protection for sockets for outside use, but others were alright without, and logically that makes sense, there is potential for all kind of accidents with cut mower flexes and damp extension leads, etc.

Yes, we I&T to the current regulations, but there is some wisdom in the older versions showing how things evolved to where they are today that is useful for judging just how much of a problem something might be in practice

Of course @Andy brings up an interesting point, if you have an installation that was competely compliant with the regs at one point, has not been altered or damaged in any way, how many years is too few for it now to be unsatsifactory, perhaps there is a mental stumbling block to get over, with having difficulty accepting anything that was compliant while I have been in the trade as unsatsifactory, however I'll have to get over that one sometime between now and when I get to deke's age age (he probably remembers installing fuses in neutrals (j/K))

 

[Murdoch]

Do we all agree that EICRs being tested strictly to the 18th edition is not in the spirit of what was intended by the legislation?

 

[ProDave]

What's needed is some CLEAR guidance.  i.e what code for common faults like no RCD on sockets, no RCD on lights etc.

If we had clear guidance set out in the regs then when we fail something we would have a document to show the customer that it's not just us being picky, this is what the regs say.

As usual we don't have that clear guidance so we argue about it instead.

 

[Murdoch]

What's needed is some CLEAR guidance.  i.e what code for common faults like no RCD on sockets, no RCD on lights etc.

If we had clear guidance set out in the regs then when we fail something we would have a document to show the customer that it's not just us being picky, this is what the regs say.

As usual we don't have that clear guidance so we argue about it instead.

In which case I refer the honorable gentleman to the best practice guide no 4 issue 5

Which was updated in July 2020 and its what I refer clients to

All the cpss contributed to it, so they must agree this is the way forward