C3s putting you in harms way ??

[old man sparky]

Just a rant regarding all these landlords EICRs that have become the in thing. And maybe a word of caution to all of you doing them.
To kick off it appears that in the eyes of the law.
A Landlords EICR is to ensure compliance with the 18th edition of the wiring regulations !!
Don't take my word for it, have a search around for yourself.
Now how does that one work out in a court of law ?? How can an installation from previous versions of the regs comply with the 18th ? It wont !
Another one is the risk of being demonised for using C2 coding's as some kind of cash cow.
As an example lack of RCD protection to all circuits. You may well decide a C3 or maybe no code under certain conditions. Then 2 years later (remember these things are supposed to stand for 5 years). Some tenant does something daft, and a fatality occurs. You have a hostile lawyer pointing the finger at you, saying the install was dangerous and you failed to note it as such.
Plastic consumer units. Another one !
You code 3 it, or no code required.
2 years later main switch overheats, goes up in smoke, and your being asked why you didn't fail the install until the fitting of a metal c/u had been carried out.
Maybe I'm over reacting, maybe not.
I just feel that good electricians who are doing there best are being left in very vulnerable positions.
They have to rely on regulations that are often not mandatory, such as BS7671 or code breaker style books. When the courts will be using written laws that contradict what an EICR is all about. We are not lawyers, we are electricians. So ask yourself, how would the law see my decision, Not the regs books.
I have seen Landlords having a moan, and electricians doing the same, because some guy has put a C2 in place where the landlords thinking I have to spend money now !!
And other electricians maybe thinking the coding's too harsh or over the top.
But stop and think. Who's necks on the line people ?
Unfortunately I have seen many changes in my lifetime. And IMHO not all for the best. We now live in a world of "where there's blame there's a claim" And as said when it hits the fan and your in the dock. Your on your own, because all those with the big ideas regulation quotes and the like will be nowhere to be seen.
A code 3 is always a step towards covering yourself. A code 2 even more so. I have always been confident of my judgements but that's as an electrician. But when I reflect on where all this is going in terms of possible future legal implications. I am not so sure.
So be very very careful.
And if some guy puts a C2 where you think a C3 was appropriate.
When asked your opinion, simply say its a judgement call, its his signature, and his choice. Its not always about saving a few bob.
I'm thinking of all of us here, and admit only C2 for what I feel are genuine reasons BUT and its a big BUT !! And mark my words.
There maybe a storm coming, and we are not seeing it.

 

[mattg4321]

If you’ve followed best practice guide 4, then that will stand you in good stead should you end up in a situation such as you describe.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Why is there no ACOP (Approved code of Practice) for electrical installations, is it just too complicated to cover every situation?

 

[Soi disant]

Remember that reports have words, and conclusions, and advice, not just EICR forms. And that a C3 is still a recommendation for improvement.

Take the above example of an electrician coding a lack of RCD as a C3. If in his report he explains the benefits of RCDs, and why he thinks they should be there, and that he believes the landlord's duty of care means he should have them added and recommends that it be done, then 2 years down the line it isn't the electrician who screwed up, it's the landlord.

 

[timhoward]

A Landlords EICR is to ensure compliance with the 18th edition of the wiring regulations !!

I agree that is what the recent law says, but I don't think that is the end of the story.
The relevant legislation is the "Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020" and can be viewed here: The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/312/contents/made

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);

3.—(1) A private landlord(1) who grants or intends to grant a specified tenancy must—

(a)ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises(2) are occupied under a specified tenancy; etc.

BUT personally I think this has ended up a little ambiguous and needs to be tested in court. I don't have the BBB here but there is (or was?) a paragraph saying something like - "Existing installations that have been installed to meet earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not mean that they are unsafe or require upgrading"

So the law says the installation has to meet the electrical safety standards, and the electrical safety standards say that installations to earlier standards don't need upgrading. (paraphrasing). So where does that leave us?
As already posted above, my answer is BPG4.
BPG4 does have examples where they should be treated as retrospective, for example outside sockets not RCD protected being coded as a C2.

So I'm very happy to try and follow BPG4.
I'm not going to tell every landlord they need a shiny new metal consumer unit.
I am happy to tell them that their pond pump needs RCD protection though.

 

[old man sparky]

Just wanted to mention I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's point of view here.
I just want you guys to feel as safe as the decisions you make.
As far as I am concerned the legislation for private rented should state as a minimum requirement ALL circuits unless a risk assessment says otherwise should contain RCD protection. And if that means a new consumer unit then so be it. Not as a cash cow, but to provide an adequate additional degree of safety towards the tenant, and provide a duty of care requirement by the landlord. It would also mean that such a decision would bring the installations a bit closer to how the legal requirements currently stand. And make no mistake the legal wording relates to compliance with the 18th as things stand.
And until some poor Guy or Girl finds themselves in a first case battle to iron out how the law should be interpreted on this. Its up in the air. But it is there. !!
Its gonna happen in some not to distant version of BS7671 so why not bring it in now, and take some of these personal judgement calls away, along with the attitude that Electricians are trying to make money out of the situation.

 

[westward10]

You do an EICR to BS7671, the new legislation is the landlords problem.

 

[Darkwood]

Any periodic inspection is designed to expose clearly dangerous issues with the installation so they can be immediately addressed and also enables the ability to put in advanced warnings or precautions to be recommended.

Let's just remember here that an EICR is an inspection on the hardwired installation only and not anything that could be dangerous that is attached to it although it is common to raise some issues in visual inspection.
Anything connected to the installation like an appliance falls under its own inspection requirements so if the landlord provides washing machines etc they should be PAT inspected on a regular basis, other items that are tenant owned fall under the tenants own responsibility to check they are safe to use and not damaged or accessible to pets and small children.

The grey area fall into what is called manufacturers recommendations, if you are PATesting appliances and they recommend RCD protection and the installation falls short in that then measures should be taken to give that whether it be fitting a rcd plug or socket or upgrading the install, this ensure appliances warranties are not void and protection is ensured that the manufacturer deemed it may require in a fault condition.

As an EICR has no bearing on appliances on the installation and a PATest has no bearing on the installation itself so we are in a chasm of emptiness on how exactly you go about this, the only solution is to attach a write up recommending RCD coverage to provide that protection thus reducing the possibilities of landlord liability in a accident or fatality in an electrical related incident, this will be in additional to its general C3 grading which only looks at the installation and not the nature or use of the building.

We have to treat the EICR the same for a private owned property or a rented landlord property and marking them differently is not how we should be approaching EICR's.

 

[Soi disant]

BUT personally I think this has ended up a little ambiguous and needs to be tested in court. I don't have the BBB here but there is (or was?) a paragraph saying something like - "Existing installations that have been installed to meet earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not mean that they are unsafe or require upgrading"

So the law says the installation has to meet the electrical safety standards, and the electrical safety standards say that installations to earlier standards don't need upgrading. (paraphrasing). So where does that leave us?

I don't see that there's a conflict. Ignoring the problem that they used the word "comply" when they really should have written "conform", it's straightforward enough - the Wiring Regulations do not require older installations to be upgraded.

That doesn't stop something else, e.g. a law, from requiring it.

 

[timhoward]

That doesn't stop something else, e.g. a law, from requiring it.

Thanks for digging out the wording.
I didn't actually mean to suggest a conflict in that sense. More querying how one relates to the other. If the law says "electrical safety standards are met" with electrical saftey standards being defined as BS7671, I can't decide if that means it needs to meet BS7671 in all regards as per a new installation or if it allows BS7671's own provisions for older installations.
Maybe I'm over thinking it....again!

 

[Lister1987]

The judge won't give a monkies about 7671, all they would look at is EAWR, and providing you can offer a robust defence under Regulation 29 (or the 'you can't prove I did/not do it' defence) them you have nothing to worry about.

Just sounds like scaremongering

 

[Mike Johnson]

Whilst I agree the judge will not give BS7671 much thought, a defence lawyer will quote it as being a reasonable source of standards to work to, unless the prosecution can point to a more definitive document or source of information, the argument being made outside the judge's knowledge base, once made the judge must take these arguments into account, being BS7671 or an alternative source of better standards, for instance an expert witness.

 

[Lister1987]

Whilst I agree the judge will not give BS7671 much thought, a defence lawyer will quote it as being a reasonable source of standards to work to, unless the prosecution can point to a more definitive document or source of information, the argument being made outside the judge's knowledge base, once made the judge must take these arguments into account, being BS7671 or an alternative source of better standards, for instance an expert witness.

It would form apart of your defense that is true, but I can't see what, if anything the prosecution can try and stick you for.

 

[Mike Johnson]

The prosecution are trying to prove that you are responsible for whatever the charge may be.

 

[westward10]

The judge won't give a monkies about 7671, all they would look at is EAWR, and providing you can offer a robust defence under Regulation 29 (or the 'you can't prove I did/not do it' defence) them you have nothing to worry about.

Just sounds like scaremongering

The E&WR 1989 do not actually apply to dwellings they are concerned with places of work.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Plastic consumer units. Another one !
You code 3 it, or no code required.
2 years later main switch overheats, goes up in smoke, and your being asked why you didn't fail the install until the fitting of a metal c/u had been carried out.

For this one I wouldn't be losing sleep over. 4.21 of the inspection schedule gives us:

Confirmation that ALL conductor connections, including connections to busbars, are correctly located in terminals and are tight and secure (526.1)

Having done this, it seems unlikely that a CU fire would occur

 

[brianmoooore]

For this one I wouldn't be losing sleep over. 4.21 of the inspection schedule gives us:

Confirmation that ALL conductor connections, including connections to busbars, are correctly located in terminals and are tight and secure (526.1)

Having done this, it seems unlikely that a CU fire would occur

Not necessarily, if a smart meter installer turns up and twists the tails.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Not necessarily, if a smart meter installer turns up and twists the tails.

Indeed, an installation can be sabotaged by future works. Based on that, are you suggesting a C2 for all plastic consumer units? Personally I code 'as it is' rather than 'how it could be'

 

[Lister1987]

The E&WR 1989 do not actually apply to dwellings they are concerned with places of work.

What do we do then if we're not there 'at work'?

Pretty certain that EAWR doesn't make any distinctions between domestic/commercial/industrial

 

[westward10]

What do we do then if we're not there 'at work'?

Pretty certain that EAWR doesn't make any distinctions between domestic/commercial/industrial

The Regulations apply to non dwelling environments so the fact you are working in a dwelling is not relevant.

 

[UNG]

The E&WR 1989 do not actually apply to dwellings they are concerned with places of work.

They do apply when you are doing an EICR because you are at work, that was one of the things that was reinforced continually throughout the course when I did the 2391 many years ago, and is one of the regular questions that appears in the exam

 

[Mike Johnson]

Just in case, even if you are doing voluntary work you are still subject to the HSAWA.

 

[westward10]

They do apply when you are doing an EICR because you are at work, that was one of the things that was reinforced continually throughout the course when I did the 2391 many years ago, and is one of the regular questions that appears in the exam

It is the Building and its usage it does not involve dwellings the fact you are working there is not relevant

 

[Dartlec]

My guess is that if/when a landlord is fined under the new regulations (since that is the harshest penalty available), then it will likely be the ones that would clearly and obviously fail any EICR that was ever done anyway, so the question will probably be moot and won't come down to the minutiae of whether things were C2 or C3, but whether C1s were present...

HSE can and will still go after electricians who fake results, when something awful happens (Such as in the Emma Shaw case), but that will be under existing legislation and a case where "reasonable" judgement is given would probably not get that far.

Until and unless the bodies involved come together and put out better guidance or more specific guidance for rented properties, then following the Best Practise Guide (or justifying departures from it based on experience or evidence) has to be the best way to ensure there is no comeback on the Inspector, financial or otherwise.

 

[timhoward]

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the guidance for landlords regarding the new law on the gov.uk website directly references the best practise guide - so it would be hard for any prosecutor to argue an inspector should have done anything other than follow it.

Guide for landlords: electrical safety standards in the private rented sector

www.gov.uk

 

[Soi disant]

Thanks for digging out the wording.
I didn't actually mean to suggest a conflict in that sense. More querying how one relates to the other. If the law says "electrical safety standards are met" with electrical saftey standards being defined as BS7671, I can't decide if that means it needs to meet BS7671 in all regards as per a new installation or if it allows BS7671's own provisions for older installations.
Maybe I'm over thinking it....again!

You may be over-thinking it. That bit in the Introduction says that non-compliant installations do not have to be upgraded. It does not say that existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the regulations are deemed to comply with this edition if they are not unsafe for continued use.

What has yet to be determined by a court ruling is whether the law requiring that "electrical safety standards are met" means that an existing installation has to comply with every aspect of BS 7671:2018 or only some, and if the latter, which.

A consensus seems to have emerged that it must have no non-compliances coded as C1 or C2. Superficially reasonable, if we think it reasonable to enshrine in law the can of worms which is the significantly indeterminate nature of many C2-or-C3 decisions ¹ .

But, and this is where you may be under-thinking it, there is no basis in fact for any determination based on C1/C2/C3. None whatsoever.

The lawmakers have done a truly abysmal job. Leaving aside the is-it-a-C2-or-a-C3 issue, they could have required landlords to have an EICR carried out which complied with the current edition of the Wiring Regulations (i.e. the carrying out of the EICR had to be in accordance, not the installation) and that any C1 or C2 conditions be rectified within x days and a new EICR done.

But they didn't. What they did was unbelievable, really. (Or is it, sadly, all too believable?)

They required that private landlords must ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises are occupied under a specified tenancy.

And they defined "electrical safety standards" as "the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018".

So, what are those "standards"? What, exactly, does the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018 actually require?

The BS standard says "The Regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations."

Nothing, nothing at all, about them applying to existing installations where no additions or alterations are being done. They apply only to the activities of designing, erecting and verifying new installations or designing, erecting and verifying additions and alterations to existing ones.

Then, how old is the installation? Because only installations designed after 31st December 2018 are to comply with the eighteenth edition - it says so quite clearly. These are the requirements which the 18th edition imposes on installations designed before that date:

1. None
2. Zip
3. None
4. Nothing
5. Nada
6. SFA
7. All of the above.

And oh how I would love it if a judge, who was pedantic even by the standards of judges, and who was utterly p'd off with the egregious incompetence of government law writers, and who had been having a bad week anyway even before his piles started giving him gyp were to say (in suitable judge-language)

"You know what? In the matter of The Crown vs Mr. Hapless Landlord I find that the law does not require that his property meet any particular electrical standards. Case dismissed."

Because I too am utterly p'd off with the egregious incompetence of people whose salaries I pay with my taxes.





¹ As an aside, it isn't always a case of "don't be ridiculous, it's a C3 at best, no way it's a C2". I was recently looking at a landlords report, where the property had a Wylex standard, and a couple of the fuse carrier backplates were missing their screws, so if someone pulled a fuse to repair it, possibly by torch or flickering candle light, it would be a case of "oh woops there's all this IP00 live metalwork".

He gave it a C2 - not sure I wouldn't have preferred a C1.

Still - I suppose it balanced out the C3 he gave for accessories having paint on them.

 

[telectrix]

a couple of the fuse carrier backplates were missing their screws, so if someone pulled a fuse to repair it, possibly by torch or flickering candle light, it would be a case of "oh woops there's all this IP00 live metalwork".

He gave it a C2 - not sure I wouldn't have preferred a C1.

I agree with a C2 on that, potential danger, as something else has to happen to make it dangerous. i.e. pulling a fuseholder out.

 

[Mike Johnson]

And the prize for the longest post on this thread goes too:

 

[Lister1987]

a couple of the fuse carrier backplates were missing their screws, so if someone pulled a fuse to repair it, possibly by torch or flickering candle light, it would be a case of "oh woops there's all this IP00 live metalwork".

He gave it a C2 - not sure I wouldn't have preferred a C1.

I agree with a C2 on that, potential danger, as something else has to happen to make it dangerous. i.e. pulling a fuseholder out.

I'd C1 is on the basis that I can see it, I can touch, it will kill me now. I can't C2 it because it is already dangerous without further actions; exposed live parts should be a C1 every day of the week, the definition tells you all you need to know; Danger Present, Requires immediate attention.

The fact these exposed live parts as squirreled away somewhere (under stairs, kitchen cupboard [60-70s houses, before we started putting DNO kit outside]) shouldn't be seen as a reason for C2, quite the opposite; how many times have you seen fuseboards/intakes with a metric ton of stuff in the same area? It just takes a momentary lapse and you'll get zapped.

 

[telectrix]

I'd C1 is on the basis that I can see it, I can touch, it will kill me now. I can't C2 it because it is already dangerous without further actions; exposed live parts should be a C1 every day of the week, the definition tells you all you need to know; Danger Present, Requires immediate attention.

The fact these exposed live parts as squirreled away somewhere (under stairs, kitchen cupboard [60-70s houses, before we started putting DNO kit outside]) shouldn't be seen as a reason for C2, quite the opposite; how many times have you seen fuseboards/intakes with a metric ton of stuff in the same area? It just takes a momentary lapse and you'll get zapped.

but those live parts are not exposed/touchable when the fuse is in position. i stick with my C2.