EICR codes when RECENT works don't comply!?

[Baker1988]

I would give a c3 to a cable in a wall less than 50mm depth i certainly would not give a c2.

Sockets i might give a c2 but depends on other factors really, will eqipment be plugged in for out side use and stuff like that.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Although that is an oft repeated phrase it is, nonetheless, incorrect.

Again I will use the examples of fused neutrals: these were permitted once, but that certainly wouldn't stop be from condemning them if I came across them now.

As it’s BS7671 which states installations which complied with earlier editions, are not necessarily unsafe and do not require upgrading, citing instances that complied with pre-BS7671 Regulations is rather redundant.
BS7671 came into being in 2001 during the 16th edition.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I would give a c3 to a cable in a wall less than 50mm depth i certainly would not give a c2.

Sockets i might give a c2 but depends on other factors really, will eqipment be plugged in for out side use and stuff like that.

Problem here, is that there is no longer a requirement to provide RCD protection for sockets that might be used to supply equipment outdoors.
Would it be right to make an observation and apply a code for a non-compliance with a requirement from an earlier edition?

 

[Risteard]

As it’s BS7671 which states installations which complied with earlier editions, are not necessarily unsafe and do not require upgrading

Nowhere does it state that they "do not require upgrading". What it actually states is that they do not necessarily require upgrading just because they don't comply with every respect with the current Standard. This doesn't give it carte blanche. It just means that due consideration must be given to the particular non-compliance and a safety judgement made.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Nowhere does it state that they "do not require upgrading". What it actually states is that they do not necessarily require upgrading just because they don't comply with every respect with the current Standard. This doesn't give it carte blanche. It just means that due consideration must be given to the particular non-compliance and a safety judgement made.

That is not what it means at all.
It means that just because the requirements have changed, it doesn’t now make it unsafe and it doesn’t have to be updated.
Remember, every new edition or amendment, allows an installation to be constructed to earlier editions after the new edition/amendment has come into force.

 

[Baker1988]

Problem here, is that there is no longer a requirement to provide RCD protection for sockets that might be used to supply equipment outdoors.
Would it be right to make an observation and apply a code for a non-compliance with a requirement from an earlier edition?

I thought reg 411.3.3 additional protection did require rcd protection for sockets not exceeding 20A and for mobile equipment not exceeding 32A for use outdoor, and that is in the new BYB

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes it requires RCD protection for sockets (that are not intended for specific items of equipment) and for mobile equipment used outdoors.
There is no longer a requirement to protect sockets that could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors.

 

[Baker1988]

I know but in the best practuce guide 4 it says a c2 for the absence of a rcd for portable or mobile equipment that may be reasonable used out doors so if there was a lawnmower in the shed i would be able to reasonably assume that it will be plugged in so if that socket dont have rcd protection then the equipment would not have rcd protection.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes, that’s one of the problems with the BPG.
Inspect an installation to the current requirements then fail it for not complying with old requirements.
Follow that logic and we should fail due to lack of fuse in the Neutral.

 

[Wilko]

I have this year converted my downstairs corridor lights to two way, cables concealed in oval conduit, no additional rcd protection and obsolete red, yellow and blue cable to boot

Doesn't that fall under the "don't ask don't tell" reg?

 

[Octopus]

Another thing to consider: There is no requirement to provide RCD protection for cables concealed in walls.
It is just an option.

Not 100% sure I agree with this.

So from the 18th does that mean we don't have to provide RCD's for socket circuit but we will have to for lighting circuits?

 

[Wilko]

Yes it requires RCD protection for sockets (that are not intended for specific items of equipment) and for mobile equipment used outdoors.
There is no longer a requirement to protect sockets that could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors.

Sorry, but I'm feeling a little lost
Hopefully the generality of the first sentence covers the loss of specificity of the second?

 

[Andy78]

Andy I always hear we can't condemn an installation that conforms to the standards at the time of installation but we are talking about an install that didn't confirm to the increased safety at the time. I get what you're saying "Why is something classed as more dangerous for the same issue because of a different installation date ?" But then why were the news regs bought into place?

What are you using to verify the age of install ? If it's the customer's word then you can assume nothing. You have already said there is no paperwork.

What do you mean you can't condemn an install that complied at the time it was installed ? There are plenty of old practices and methods that are considered dangerous and should be coded. How the heck are you to verify the exact age of every install you inspect and whether it complied or not ? Do you carry round a copy of every single version of the wiring regs ?

My point is that if an issue is dangerous or not dangerous it does not matter when it was installed. It doesn't become more or less dangerous because of the presence or absence of a bit of paper.

 

[Octopus]

What is the purpose of the EICR?

Is the customer trying to get a completion certificate off the council?

 

[PEG]

Finally,Andy got it The purpose of an EICR is not to carbon date,or time-team or do a character assassination on a previous installer...it is to assess,at that time,the condition of the electrical installation,and report.

As stated many times,two identical installation issues,could bring about different codes,or no code,in separate properties.

That is down to the opinion and judgement,of the inspector.

 

[S P]

Spin, you said in a previous post:
EICR- Are Rcd's necessary ? - https://www.electriciansforums.co.uk/threads/eicr-are-rcds-necessary.108681/

""The socket may well be used for the mower.
However the mower may have an RCD plug, or may be used with a plug in RCD adapter.
The socket (unless it is intended for a specific item of equipment) fails to comply with current Regulations, as it has no RCD protection. To then make a further observation based on the fact that it fails to comply with something that is no longer a requirement of the Regulations, would mean that you are not conducting the inspection, in accordance with the requirements of BS7671.

If it is the case, that at the time of design/construction of the installation, the requirement to provide RCD protection for socket-outlets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors was in force, then you have an installation which has never complied with the requirements of BS7671.
As such the requirement which allows for installations which complied at the time of their design/construction to not be deemed unsafe does not apply.
This would mean that a code C2 would be applicable for all general use sockets, cables concealed in walls, circuits of locations containing baths or showers, etc.""

 

[S P]

What is the purpose of the EICR?

Is the customer trying to get a completion certificate off the council?

Customer is looking to purchase the home

Finally,Andy got it The purpose of an EICR is not to carbon date,or time-team or do a character assassination on a previous installer...it is to assess,at that time,the condition of the electrical installation,and report.

As stated many times,two identical installation issues,could bring about different codes,or no code,in separate properties.

That is down to the opinion and judgement,of the inspector.

I don't want to do that unnecessarily, this is why I'm asking for your opinions

There are also other issues like:

1.Sockets installed behind built in appliances with no isolation
2.Oven circuit - no isolator + hob ignitor wired direct to connection outlet
3.Main bond to water before stop cock - then plastic inline connector - no continuity present past the break, no supplementary bonding in bathrooms. (No code as it's now not an extraneous conductive part?)
4.Main bond to Gas not connected
5. IP top of CU, finger easy

 

[westward10]

You need to state facts and not worry about the whys and whens of any additions or alterations. Me personally I would reinstate the main protective bonds.

 

[S P]

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Sorry, but I'm feeling a little lost
Hopefully the generality of the first sentence covers the loss of specificity of the second?

It’s quite simple.
The requirement now, is for all sockets (except those for specific items of equipment) to be provided with RCD protection.
If you have a situation where there are sockets without RCD protection, you make an observation and code appropriately.
You don’t then add another observation because some of those sockets might be used for equipment outdoors, as there is no longer a requirement that specifies sockets used to supply equipment outdoors require RCD protection.
Mobile equipment used outdoors is required to be RCD protected.
That could be by means of an RCD socket, an RCD FCU, an RCD plug or an RCD plug in adapter.