Was this the right decision for an EICR ?

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

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))

But what is your answer to the other part of my point?

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?

Compliance -vs- non-compliance and deciding if something is satisfactory or unsatisfactory, is a personal evaluation by the inspector following the current guidance of BS7671, whilst taking into account previous versions, age of the installation, and its proposed normal use.      

{ read the opening pages of guidance note 3. }

I don't think there is a single answer for every installation..  as every job itself is different...

Which is why you will not get an idiots guide book saying what codes must be issued etc..

And rented properties can be more of a potential hazard due to the nature of the users, rather than the installation..

So the same installation could be more of a hazard due to the potential users... not just the wiring itself. 

If we consider three installations similar to the one like Deke's  asking about..

Assuming they were all the same age and compliant when they were installed..

a) A reasonably old installation that is know to be rented out... 

No previous records available,

No indication of when it was last tested,

No shock protection fitted..

b) A reasonably old installation that is know to be rented out...

No previous records available,

No indication of when it was last tested,

Does have RCD shock protection fitted..

c) A reasonably old installation that is know to be rented out... 

Regularly inspected & tested,

All previous documentation and testing records available,

but no shock protection fitted..

In my opinion installation (a) is a greater potential hazard than either (b) or (c)..

as faulty cables, accessories, appliances etc, can all be detected easier by either RCD's or frequent inspection & testing..

Looking at it from another perspective..

If your elderly parents were living at this property.. Or one of your children had just moved in with their partner & new-born baby..

Would you with your knowledge, be pushing them to get the landlord to upgrade the fuse-box and implement more regular testing..

or would you just leave it saying its all ok and safe enough?

The bottom line question you as the inspector have to decide is ..

"Do you think the installation is satisfactory for continual use, until its due for the next recommended inspection for the duration you have put in the box on the paper you have signed?"

Guinness

 

[Murdoch]

^^^

With that attitude you are handing a blank cheque book to the dodgy sparks

As I said before is my 17th edition install unsatisfactory because it doesn't have a metal board?

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

^^^

With that attitude you are handing a blank cheque book to the dodgy sparks

As I said before is my 17th edition install unsatisfactory because it doesn't have a metal board?

:C

Obviously installations do not automatically become unsafe just because the regs have been amended..

But also installations do not automatically remain satisfactory indefinitely just because they were installed correctly to earlier regs.

And a 17th edition plastic CU is NOT what what Deke was asking about....

We are talking about a possible 15th edition, No RCD board..    (It could well be metal for all I know)..

A 17th edition, possibly dual RCD board, in a plastic enclosure, max 12 years old, is a completely different beast.

    :shakehead

 

[Andy™]

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?

all I&T is always done to current standards. this has always been the case, just someone has also put it in black and white in the legislation, and some still cant figure it out

also see 651.2 note2

 

[boltonsparky]

In a flat, it's highly unlikely anything is going to be running power to outside unless ground floor. Really tenants shouldn't be drilling/hammering anything at all into the wall, the reality of this is different of course. If all circuits test out ok for IR and you've inspected all connections there is very little fire risk. If all bonding is in place, disconnection times are met, they're in an equipotential zone so quite a safe environment should a fault develop. 

It could be a young family in there and potential for little fingers to be going where they shouldn't but UK socket outlets are designed to prevent this, you've just inspected it so all enclosures should meet the required IP ratings.

If a tenant damages an accessory are they likely to report it to the landlord for repair, in a lot of cases the answer to that would be no, an RCD would make this situation safer.

Is there an electric shower in the flat, might swing things.

Yes they could bring in one of the most dangerous appliances you've ever seen and plug it again an RCD would help in part to make this situatin safer. But where should the line be drawn with regards to the tenants responsibility and the landlord's. Can the landlord really be responsible for what the tenant plugs in, not as far as I'm concerned but the law may see it differently.

As for codings something that might only warrant a C3 I may give a C2 to throw it to an unsatisfactory to make sure that that upgrade is done because in reality a C3 means in the majority of cases that recommended upgrade isn't going to happen. 

I've argued before, on here I think, against upgrading boards that were fine at the time of install but in this over litigious world we now live in you can't be too careful.

I'd have recommended the upgrade like yourself in this case.   

The good landlords who probably got EICRs done or had a system for making sure the install was safe anyway will be adhering to the legislation. The major problem is the exact landlords the legislation was intended to protect tenants against either won't bother with an EICR or will get an equally dodgy "inspector" to sign it off as satisfactory when in fact it's a death trap, this is the fundamental problem.

 

[Evans Electric]

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.

Good point ....   there  seemed to be a reluctance with those upon high who compile the Regs  to  fully address certain things.       

Rcds  recommended for outside sockets  came in .    No mention of showers except by the manufacturers . 

RCDs recommended for ALL sockets  . ( Unless a competent person says they're OK)    ((  Or with a label fixed ))  

RCDs  recommended for  all circuits buried in the walls , whatever they are .  

I've argued before, on here I think, against upgrading boards that were fine at the time of install but in this over litigious world we now live in you can't be too careful.

That was in my mind  TBH  .   My EICR  lasts for 5 yrs  ....someone  digs it out in four years time ....Oh look  this  bloke  Evans Electric  has no trip times for RCDs because there are none  fitted  ... bit carp for  the year 2025  methinks .   

 

[Murdoch]

:C

Obviously installations do not automatically become unsafe just because the regs have been amended..

But also installations do not automatically remain satisfactory indefinitely just because they were installed correctly to earlier regs.

And a 17th edition plastic CU is NOT what what Deke was asking about....

We are talking about a possible 15th edition, No RCD board..    (It could well be metal for all I know)..

A 17th edition, possibly dual RCD board, in a plastic enclosure, max 12 years old, is a completely different beast.

    :shakehead

1, Agree

2. Yes - and your point is?

3. I quite agree 

which is why I refer customers to the Best Practice Guide as it does seem to sum up these thoughts quite well - which does endorses that installations not to the 18th edition are safe for continued use.

Just take a look at the roll of "honour" of contributors (including Napit) especially as there are some clear contradictions with their Code Breakers book

View attachment bpg4-1 - Page 2.pdf

all I&T is always done to current standards. this has always been the case, just someone has also put it in black and white in the legislation, and some still cant figure it out

also see 651.2 note2

Precisely. 

Which, as I read it, means that earlier installations are not automatically "unsatisfactory" .......

 

[Andy™]

Precisely. 

Which, as I read it, means that earlier installations are not automatically "unsatisfactory" .......

exactly. but at some point it will. something done to the last regs would generally be fine. something done to regs decades ago not so much. fact still remains that just because it was done to a previous edition doesnt mean it will always be satisfactory. there's got to be a point where it goes from C3 to C2

 

[Murdoch]

there's got to be a point where it goes from C3 to C2

 
The ONLY reg change that springs to mind are RCD’s for sockets
 

so in my mind, ALL installations need a minimum of RCD protection for sockets, if none is present. Which is how I would code now

but none of this metal fuseboard, no spd, no rcd for cables or no rcd for lights nonsense - these are all C3’s 

 

[binky]

I always think rental property should be resonably up to date, same a s renting a car, you would expect it to have seat belts as a minimum. In my mind this equates to RCD for sockets (regardless of whether or not its an upstairs flat) and showers as a must, RCDs for iighting, not required. Plastic board, not really a problem.  My reasoning is protection of children / vulnerable adults who may be living in a property

 

[kerching]

It makes you wonder at the logic behind the report I was asked to look at 

board PVC C2.   PVC? PVC!!!!!! WTAF.

fitting not suitable for bathroom....C2 ........fair enough it was stainless cheese and a bit rusty BUT outside Z2, IP45, Double insulated!    Bloke hadn't even taken the cover off

anyway customer is threatening the letting agent and ."spark" with litigation

 

[Murdoch]

Another one I’ve looked at C2 - reason, spur from CU at Mcb  WTGrape

we need a daft EICR codings thread