DICR - Split load boards in HMOs

[westward10]

Andy you may not agree/understand the first paragraph but the second is perfectly accurate, didn't expect a Trusted Member to respond like this. I don't use third party guides such as the Best Practice Guide, no idea who is behind it or what it contains. I do agree these Guides can be of some use to someone who is not too sure of the task before them. If it does indeed contain guidance for Code designation I am sure the text will include some sort of disclaimer like using your own experience, knowledge or something along those lines, I really wouldn't know. Your text book definition of Code FI doesn't progress this and the question of where in BS7671 it states Code 3 MUST be used has not been answered.

 

[Octopus]

So how often do you use the FI code? For me it's rare.

 

[westward10]

Dave, BS7671 gives their definition of the Codes but it is not guiding you as to where to put x and y. I think you are misreading why we use Code FI, no one is being asked here to investigate something we have already made an observation to. Many sites we test have specific needs for those who occupy the premises alongside those who work there and our clients are best placed to Further Investigate for want of a better phrase as to whether additional rcd protection should be put in place, we all know the benefits but this is a commercial world. We are not doing anything outside the scope of BS7671 and to state that no matter how the client decides, that BS7671 still requires rcds to be installed, these are existing installations. Am I missing something, must they be changed to meet current standards? Obviously if any distribution board is replaced it will have the necessary additional protection and aside from this if there is potential danger which may arise from the absence of additional protection this is not advised for Further Investigation and would likely be put in Code 2.

 

[richy3333]

Some toys are clearly being thrown from prams for some reason. Mr Sparks I am employed by a company which has a varied, nationwide client base some of which have varying types of installation, types which may require individual requirements. We rarely delve into the non commercial domestic sector and as such our Reports reviewed by the client who employ people well versed in current requirements. It is at this point of the process where they further investigate whether additional protection by way of rcd/s may be beneficial, often on an individual basis. Of course I understand our interpretation of Code FI may somewhat stray from the meaning in BS7671 it never the less helps our client make their own considered judgement.
Mr 3333 could you back up your statement where you state FI is wrong. I have openly admitted to overlooking the statement in BS7671, page 427 where Code 3 is referred to. This reference however is clearly a prompt to at least make mention of the absence of additional rcd protection by giving a MINIMUM Code 3 classification. The allotting of these Codes is based on personal judgement and if one chose to they could put it in Code 1, 2, FI or 3. I await your reinforcement of your statement.

Simples really. What FI is there to do if no RCD present. Search the whole house, rip floors, hammer to the walls but if it ain't there no amount of FI (further investigation) will find a non existent RCD? Lord Lucan maybe but not a missing RCD.

Yes, personal judegemnt comes into I&T but there is plentry of guidance on the matter from the IET et al.

Try page 426 (or 427) of BYB. App 6, section 9? I paraphrase but FI is used where there is an apparent deficiency, but due to the extent or limitations of inspection could not be identified. In the OPs scenario, perhaps only a blind man could use FI because he couldn't see that an RCD was missing? At the end of the day the lack of an RCD might give rise to a code 2 or 3 but not FI.

Im surprised at your later comments re lack of publications. I'd expect anyone I&Ting to have access to the OSG and GN's to make informed rounded judgements.

Hope your not an old Weston Favell Upper lad

richy3333 (aka mr 3333)

 

[westward10]

No one is asking anyone to investigate an observation already made, read my thread. No need to keep quoting FI definitions. I personally don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees but you are another one who cannot tell me where in BS7671 it tells me it MUST go in Code 3. I stated I do not use third party guides but gave their possible uses in my thread. I have IET Guidance notes 1 to 8 which I refer to and the On Site Guide which I never refer to, it is a requirement for ECA, NICEIC membership, no idea why though.
Fortunately I was not educated at Weston Favell Upper.

 

[Andy78]

Andy you may not agree/understand the first paragraph but the second is perfectly accurate, didn't expect a Trusted Member to respond like this. I don't use third party guides such as the Best Practice Guide, no idea who is behind it or what it contains. I do agree these Guides can be of some use to someone who is not too sure of the task before them. If it does indeed contain guidance for Code designation I am sure the text will include some sort of disclaimer like using your own experience, knowledge or something along those lines, I really wouldn't know. Your text book definition of Code FI doesn't progress this and the question of where in BS7671 it states Code 3 MUST be used has not been answered.

As I stated, the best practice guide is produced with the contribution of and endorsed by the IET and BSI, and in addition Certsure, Select, Beama, City and guilds, EAL, and NAPIT. I'm happy to use it as industry accepted guidance endorsed by the authors and publishers of BS7671.

All the codes within this guide are supported by any modern testing and inspection course including the city and guilds 2395. You wouldn't expect to sit an exam on such a course, be presented with examples of items to be coded, and answer "Well, it's all down the inspector, you can code them what you like" and expect to pass would you ? If there are right and wrong answers to such questions then there must be right and wrong ways to apply codes.

I agree with you that some areas are indeed subjective, but I stand by my assertion that you are wrong to say that the inspector is free to issue any code they like to any given issue on a periodic inspection. Wrong in the sense that an inspection to BS7671 should follow the rules and guidance to BS7671.

If you have developed your own inspection format over the years with your own rules and coding definitions that suit your role as an inspector for particular clients, then that is an entirely different matter.

The definition of FI is clearly stated in the guidance for recipients on the model forms in BS7671 and does not apply not the situation in question.

 

[Octopus]

No one is asking anyone to investigate an observation already made, read my thread. No need to keep quoting FI definitions. I personally don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees but you are another one who cannot tell me where in BS7671 it tells me it MUST go in Code 3. I stated I do not use third party guides but gave their possible uses in my thread. I have IET Guidance notes 1 to 8 which I refer to and the On Site Guide which I never refer to, it is a requirement for ECA, NICEIC membership, no idea why though.
Fortunately I was not educated at Weston Favell Upper.

The main problem with BS 7671 is that it was written by various people at various times - a bit like the bible.

do you like digging? the hole you are in seems to be getting deeper by the day!

 

[westward10]

I dig no hole, it appears the wolves have decided to attack me, however none have answered my question.

 

[Andy78]

I dig no hole, it appears the wolves have decided to attack me, however none have answered my question.

Oh come on, no persecution complexes from grown ups please What's the question you feel has not been answered ?

 

[westward10]

Where in BS7671 does it state the absence of additional rcd protection MUST be a Code 3 observation (see page 427) and I emphasise the word MUST, no references to third party guide books.

 

[Andy78]

Where in BS7671 does it state the absence of additional rcd protection MUST be a Code 3 observation (see page 427) and I emphasise the word MUST, no references to third party guide books.

It doesn't. On page 427 There is guidance that says it must be given a minimum C3 (item 2, guidance for the inspector). There is also mention of the definition of all the codes including FI (items 7,8,and 9 guidance for recipient).
The definition of FI excludes it from use where an item can be fully inspected and tested within the scope and limits of the report. FI in this instance is not therefore suitable for use.
A C2 may be applied to such a situation depending on cirumstance, but not a C1 as a lack of RCD could not be construed as "danger present"

 

[richy3333]

No one is asking anyone to investigate an observation already made, read my thread. No need to keep quoting FI definitions. I personally don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees but you are another one who cannot tell me where in BS7671 it tells me it MUST go in Code 3. I stated I do not use third party guides but gave their possible uses in my thread. I have IET Guidance notes 1 to 8 which I refer to and the On Site Guide which I never refer to, it is a requirement for ECA, NICEIC membership, no idea why though.
Fortunately I was not educated at Weston Favell Upper.

Its not your thread. I think you mean your previous posts. Your questions and comments keep changing. As others have said, just stop digging.

And, no, there's no conspiracy against you, or wolves, or hate mail, or angry leprechauns...

 

[westward10]

Sorry posts, think we will have to agree to disagree on this or we will be doing this until the 18th Edition turns us all upside down again. Been interesting though and I do see all points of view on the matter.