Periodic Inspections

[C8XY]

I’m carrying out a periodic on thursday on a property that has an old installation.
I’m testing it to 17th edition regs, so surely the entire installation will be deemed unsatisfactory - is this correct?
ie. no RCD, no MCBs (fuses), under rated tails, under rated main bonds etc....

Where does the client stand in this situation?

Thanks, Rob.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

Most likely, but it will only be unsatisfactory in certain areas.

It's very important on the report to distinguish between the two.

 

[Sav]

My in laws have a c/unit approx 15 years old. No RCD's, but all ZS's are well within the limits.

I would code 4 this.

Hope this helps in any way,
Sav

 

[C8XY]

Most likely, but it will only be unsatisfactory in certain areas.

It's very important on the report to distinguish between the two.

Would you mind telling me what would be deemed unsatisfactory?

 

[Sparky Ninja]

Would you mind telling me what would be deemed unsatisfactory?

You can start here.......

http://www.elecsa.co.uk/downloads/public/PIR%20Best%20Practice%20Guide_ESC.pdf





As you can see, any code 1 or 2's are currently deemed as reason for unsatisfactory.

 

[C8XY]

Thanks guys

 

[Sparky Ninja]

There are a few discussions on codes and interpretations.


Have a little search and see what your interpretations are.....

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I’m carrying out a periodic on thursday on a property that has an old installation.
I’m testing it to 17th edition regs, so surely the entire installation will be deemed unsatisfactory - is this correct?
ie. no RCD, no MCBs (fuses), under rated tails, under rated main bonds etc....

Where does the client stand in this situation?

Thanks, Rob.

The PDF posted by widdler gives guidance on what codes to apply but in the end it is the inspectors judgement.
It is important to remember that just because an installation is old it is not neccesarily unsafe. The 17th edition was only introduced a couple of years ago and to condemn all installations before it became the standard would be ridiculous.

Regarding the points you made....
No RCD...prior to the 17th RCD's were less widely used and as long as lack of RCD protection is not causing a safety issue (such as an external socket not protected,lack of RCD on a TT system etc) this would be a code 4 which would not result in an unsatisfactory.

Fuses rather than MCB's...semi-enclosed rewirable fuses still comply with the regulations contrary to popular belief....provided disconnection times are met and cable sizes comply this would not attract a code.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

but in the end it is the inspectors judgement.

What this also means is that you may want to get yourself some proffesinal indemnity insurance (if you haven't already), especially if you are planning on doing periodic more frequently....

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I'ts also worth saying that the inspector should be careful not to bring personal preferences and dislikes into his report,stick to coding only deviations from Bs 7671......and yes a PIR report is a legally accountable document so you have to be able to justify any recommendations you make...(or dont make).

 

[Risteard]

no MCBs (fuses)

Where does it say that circuit breakers are mandatory?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Regarding the points you made....

Fuses rather than MCB's...semi-enclosed rewirable fuses still comply with the regulations contrary to popular belief....provided disconnection times are met and cable sizes comply this would not attract a code.

Already done that one mate

 

[caddy]

and yes a PIR report is a legally accountable document so you have to be able to justify any recommendations you make...(or dont make).

Please dont think im being funny if this question comes over the wrong way, but I have heard of this before and have always been under the impression that a PIR is just that its simply the inspectors report on an installation at that particular time, not only that if two electricians inspect a property you will get two different reports. So how could it be a legally accountable document.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

As I understand it if you knowingly misrepresent an installation in a PIR report in order to gain unjustified work you can be held accountable in a court of law. Likewise if following a PIR report there was a serious electrical accident or fire the report may be used as evidence......that is my understanding , if I'm wrong I stand corrected.

 

[Risteard]

Already done that one mate

So you have! Apologies.