The electrical trade is not the only one to have poor inspections, I found large holes between back plate and chimney sealed with gaffa tape which pealed off as soon as it got warm.
I had a house buyer report done when buying this house, had not even realised they looked at the electrical work, but the report detailed how there was a disused fuse box between original and new false ceiling, however it was not disused.
But to be fair the owner can set limits and stipulate what it inspected and tested, there is no law to say what should be included in an EICR or what should get a code C2 and what should gets code C3.
“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards;
“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);
Now BS 7671 in the preamble has a date after which designs need to follow the book, so anything designed before that date is still controlled by the edition in force at the date when designed, clearly there have been laws which are are retrospective, but BS 7671 is not, so however much we feel it is wrong, if designed in 1954 then it only has to comply with the IEE regulations in force then not the IET/BSi regulations designed for a new build today.
Some times I feel being an electrician is more down to being an English student than an electricians, so it is hard to say some thing is wrong. What is needed is case law, once there are some court cases where the court says either all rented houses should be treated as new builds, or should comply as if built in 1992, then what we have in real terms is the phase "potentially dangerous" and some one has to decide what in real terms what "potentially dangerous" means.
I think we can say homes in 1882 were "potentially dangerous" that is why we started to publish
`Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Fire Risks Arising from Electric Lighting' and 15 years latter with `General Rules recommended for Wiring for the Supply of Electrical Energy' it was likely little better.
But by 1966 we had earthed lights, and nearly all we have today other than the RCD, and the electrical safety council still publish this picture
which seems to say RCD protection is still not always required, clearly required with TT, but still optional with TN installations.
Don't get me wrong, I think all domestic premises should be RCD protected, but as yet there is no law saying it must be RCD protected. There are things which are cut and dried we have two IP ratings IP4X or IPXXD and IP2X or IPXXB one from top and other every other direction basic 1 mm from top and 12.5 mm any other direction so any missing MCB/RCBO blank is a fail as they are wider than 12.5 mm.
But although I may issue a code C2 the actual requirement for "potentially dangerous" is rather vague, and to say some one else got it wrong is hard.
The form shows the insulation resistance on each circuit, if it passes even with water running down the walls not sure how you can say it should not pass, in real terms it would not pass, but if it says it passed on the EICR how can anyone prove on the day the test was done the wall was not dry.
The forms say "An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded." this taken from the IET forms, yes it says BS 7671:2018, amended to .............(date) but that is for the installation certificate not the condition report.
I will admit the form says "Manual operation of circuit-breakers and RCDs to prove disconnection (643.10)" and other references to numbers only found in 18th edition and "RCD(s) provided for fault protection - includes RCBOs (411.4.204; 411.5.2; 531.2) but you are give 8 options including "Not applicable" which can be entered when the circuit was designed before the date when RCD protection was required.
I still feel under protective device we should have both type and curve so we can see from the installation certificate if originally it had a better type of RCD, there are two things I don't like, solar panels and electric car charging as in both cases we may need type B RCD's fitted, but hard to find out without previous paperwork.
As yet not had to work out if type AC is OK or not, but getting to nitty gritty we know 1/2 inspection and test is wrong, but how can you prove it?
