DICR - Split load boards in HMOs

[murphy21]

How would you code for circuits not protected by RCD in HMOs, the circuits being, lighting, water heaters and storage heating?
I'm thinking code 3, my main concern is the switch drops having no protection, just wondered if others agree.

 

[Darkwood]

Welcome to the forum

 

[Pete999]

How would you code for circuits not protected by RCD in HMOs, the circuits being, lighting, water heaters and storage heating?
I'm thinking code 3, my main concern is the switch drops having no protection, just wondered if others agree.

When was the property wired?

 

[murphy21]

June 2007 the property was rewired after a fire caused by bad wiring I was told!

 

[telectrix]

so it complied then as 522.6.101 did not come into force till 2008.

 

[Risteard]

I don't see any relevance to what was permitted when it was wired. The question is are these switch drops compliant now, and presumably the answer is that they are not. (Obviously I cannot see what wiring system has been employed.)

The next question is what degree of danger does this non-compliance result in? And that is your answer as to whether C3 is appropriate. (Lack of RCD protection where required should not be uncoded, however.)

 

[Octopus]

I really don't agree to going round giving C3 codes to old lighting circuits just because they don't have RCD protection.

 

[davesparks]

I really don't agree to going round giving C3 codes to old lighting circuits just because they don't have RCD protection.

Unfortunately we don't have any choice, the great book makes this one pretty clear cut.

 

[davesparks]

When was the property wired?

Why? The eicr is an assessment of an installation being fit for continued service based on the current regulations, and the current regulations make it quite clear that a C3 is to be given in this situation

 

[westward10]

Didn't know Regulations gave advise on Code designation what page is this on. Code FI it.

 

[davesparks]

Didn't know Regulations gave advise on Code designation what page is this on. Code FI it.

I assume you don't carry out EICRs then if you aren't aware of the guidance for the inspector written in bs7671.

For reference it is part of the model forms on page 427.
Item 2 of the guidance for the inspector states that the absence of RCD protection should given, as a minimum, a code C3

 

[westward10]

So it does I couldn't see the wood for the trees, that can be my you learn something new everyday.

 

[westward10]

As a post script to the above, assume no more for I have been an electrician for 35 years, the last 25 of those carrying out PIRs and EICRs. The last 20 of those years as a Technical Manager, it is ridiculous I have not seen this before but hey ho no excuses. Will continue to put in Code FI as this is exceeding the recommended Code 3, on what page was that again:6:

 

[Andy78]

As a post script to the above, assume no more for I have been an electrician for 35 years, the last 25 of those carrying out PIRs and EICRs. The last 20 of those years as a Technical Manager, it is ridiculous I have not seen this before but hey ho no excuses. Will continue to put in Code FI as this is exceeding the recommended Code 3, on what page was that again:6:

What form would the further investigation take, and what could be gleaned from the further investigation that could not during the initial periodic inspection ?

 

[davesparks]

As a post script to the above, assume no more for I have been an electrician for 35 years, the last 25 of those carrying out PIRs and EICRs. The last 20 of those years as a Technical Manager, it is ridiculous I have not seen this before but hey ho no excuses. Will continue to put in Code FI as this is exceeding the recommended Code 3, on what page was that again:6:

FI? What on earth is there to investigate? If there is no RCD then no amount of investigation is going to change that!

 

[richy3333]

As a post script to the above, assume no more for I have been an electrician for 35 years, the last 25 of those carrying out PIRs and EICRs. The last 20 of those years as a Technical Manager, it is ridiculous I have not seen this before but hey ho no excuses. Will continue to put in Code FI as this is exceeding the recommended Code 3, on what page was that again:6:

Irrespective of years served, FI is wrong - as others have pointed out.

 

[westward10]

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.

 

[Andy78]

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.

This statement is entirely wrong. The coding system is clearly defined in BS7671, GN3, and further guidance is given in the best practice guide which is endorsed by the IET and BSI. The room for personal judgement of application of codes is very narrow, and certainly nowhere near the broadness of between a C3 and a C1.

The FI code should be reserved for items or situations that cannot practicably be investigated within the scope and limitation of the EICR as defined at the start of the inspection. It should not be applied as a means to facilitate a client to get a second opinion.

 

[davesparks]

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.

Coding is based on very simple guidelines in bs7671, there is very little personal judgement in most observations.


FI indicates that further investigation is required, what further investigation are you saying is required here?
The fact that an RCD is not installed has been identified, and as far as I can see there is nothing to investigate, no amount of further investigation is going to change this, the observation will still be that there is no RCD.

 

[davesparks]

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.

That is irrelevant to the EICR coding, the EICR is purely a report based solely on bs7671, anything outside of the scope of bs7671 should be treated as a separate entity or have maybe a modified form of an EICR applied if appropriate. But no matter what your client decides or assesses the fact still remains that bs7671 requires RCDs to be installed.
If it is decided that there is no benefit to installing an RCD in a situation where bs7671 requires them then it is a departure from bs7671 and should be treated appropriately.

It is still not a matter for further investigation after the EICR has been carried out, what you have described is your client making an assessment of the benefits of carrying out an improvement you have recommended.

 

[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.