So AFDD then for all Landlords???

[Vortigern]

I was just thinking if NAPIT are coding no RCD on lighting, to comply with the new LL law/S.I. as C2 then presumably we would also have to say absence of AFDD is likewise C2? And how about SPD as well. This surely can't be right, making regs retrospective.

 

[radiohead]

AFDD's and SPD's in dwellings are not required, only recommended. No code is appropriate.
RCD protection to lighting circuits is now required, but should not attract a code 2 except perhaps in special locations. NAPIT are wrong to suggest blanket code 2.

 

[Ian1981]

AFDD’s are a recommendation only, SPD’s are not a recommendation in dwellings , they are required unless the cost therin does not justify such protection.

 

[littlespark]

What about metal consumer units? Some poor (huh!) landlord has his property rewired 5 years ago, got a nice plastic CU....
Future proofed by having everything off rcd.

Sorry, got to come out.

 

[DPG]

Napit are going to cause a lot of people to have work done that they will not need. Which will help all the cowboys out there, who won't fully inform the customer.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

Almost makes me happy to be with the NIC ?

 

[nicebutdim]

Out of curiosity; are Napit members expected to adhere to coding according to codebreakers or is it intended as a guide?

Seems like a relevant question if the book contradicts other guidance.

 

[radiohead]

AFDD’s are a recommendation only, SPD’s are not a recommendation in dwellings , they are required unless the cost therin does not justify such protection.

Translated that means they are not required but are recommended.

 

[Vortigern]

The thing is, as we have seen, people are already whipping out C2 for LLs on this issue. Surely artistic liecence (purposefully mispelt) will soon include metalclad CU, AFDD, SPD and a partridge in a pear tree. I personally believe it is a mistake in the new S.I. to insist on 18th edition compliance in fact nonsense to be clear. So when the 19th comes out in December (I prophesy) we still have to ensure compliance with an obsolete version of regs. really!

 

[Welchyboy1]

Out of curiosity; are Napit members expected to adhere to coding according to codebreakers or is it intended as a guide?

Seems like a relevant question if the book contradicts other guidance.

Dont panic quite yet

 

[Vortigern]

I think we all know that NAPIT and NICEIC et al do give out advice which is no way even regulatory or required. It is the case that it is up to the judgement of the person doing the EICR. Although I must say it is a good book and a good reference to sort of compare my thinking with what was no doubt a team effort of a few people who know their job. The regs refs. in there are handy as well for filling in reports.

 

[Dartlec]

Don't know the answer to this one, but has an eicr ever been tested in court? As in an incident/fire/whatever and the contents of an EICR been used against the report creator?

There are some obvious issues which aren't up for much debate, but there's a lot of grey area where the inspectors judgement is considered more important than the 'regulations'. I suspect if you got 5 electrical 'experts' together to discuss a topic you'd rarely get 100% agreement on anything.

 

[Welchyboy1]

I think we all know that NAPIT and NICEIC et al do give out advice which is no way even regulatory or required. It is the case that it is up to the judgement of the person doing the EICR. Although I must say it is a good book and a good reference to sort of compare my thinking with what was no doubt a team effort of a few people who know their job. The regs refs. in there are handy as well for filling in reports.

Yes i bought it for the same reason, although i found a few of the codings on the extreme side and against the general consensus of the industry which is only going to cause more conflicting issues than its claiming to solve.

It seemed unless the issue is extremely minor(e.g. Missing switch wire sleeving) its mostly a code 2 regardless

A bit of a cop out/--- covering exercise if you ask me!

Me personally, I will be working on the guidance of the electrical safety first guide primarily but like you say its good for reference and covers more examples than most guides.

 

[AJshep]

NAPIT aren't suggesting that you code no RCD protection o lighting circuits a C2?

Quote from the Codebreaker book.
"Circuit supplying luminaires in a domestic dwelling,class 1 fittings, No 30mA RCD protection C3.

 

[Markyd]

AFDD’s are a recommendation only, SPD’s are not a recommendation in dwellings , they are required unless the cost therin does not justify such protection.

WRONG...Recommendation only, if the client says no then no

 

[Brian Taylor]

Yes i bought it for the same reason, although i found a few of the codings on the extreme side and against the general consensus of the industry which is only going to cause more conflicting issues than its claiming to solve.

It seemed unless the issue is extremely minor(e.g. Missing switch wire sleeving) its mostly a code 2 regardless

A bit of a cop out/--- covering exercise if you ask me!

Me personally, I will be working on the guidance of the electrical safety first guide primarily but like you say its good for reference and covers more examples than most guides.

hi reading this thread with interest...I must agree that a great deal of confusion exists about codeing of faults.I think to a certain degree a fair proportion of testers over do the C1 and C2 codes in fear of some misplaced sense of misconduct if they give a less severe codeing.I must admit I think a lot of rubbish is written and talked about viewing especially by some organisations who should know better and these opinions very often only serve to scare the tester into making decisions which are not warranted.
As I understand it a code 1 is reserved for the most onerous conditions is where live conductor/ part are exposed and liable to be touched e.g. A damaged sockets with live exposed parts of a CU which is damaged such that live parts are easily touched. Code 2 faults are those which are not dangerous as is but may become dangerous in the future e.g. a cracked socket , in this context i have seen some sparks condem a socket simply due to a small defect on a corner..I think we must all agree that this would not warrant any codeing at all. I accept that there is a proportion of the trade that overdo the codeing in order to milk the job. In my opinion there are very few defects that warrant a code 1 and not many more that attract a code 2, the vast number of faults will be code 3 or Further investigation required. This does not of course mean that a never ending list of code 3s will not result in an unsatisfactory report it will, but the overuse of code 1 & 2 should not be used simply as a catch all to produce an unsatisfactory result and hence unwarranted rectification works.

 

[Welchyboy1]

NAPIT aren't suggesting that you code no RCD protection o lighting circuits a C2?

Quote from the Codebreaker book.
"Circuit supplying luminaires in a domestic dwelling,class 1 fittings, No 30mA RCD protection C3.

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]

hi reading this thread with interest...I must agree that a great deal of confusion exists about codeing of faults.I think to a certain degree a fair proportion of testers over do the C1 and C2 codes in fear of some misplaced sense of misconduct if they give a less severe codeing.I must admit I think a lot of rubbish is written and talked about viewing especially by some organisations who should know better and these opinions very often only serve to scare the tester into making decisions which are not warranted.
As I understand it a code 1 is reserved for the most onerous conditions is where live conductor/ part are exposed and liable to be touched e.g. A damaged sockets with live exposed parts of a CU which is damaged such that live parts are easily touched. Code 2 faults are those which are not dangerous as is but may become dangerous in the future e.g. a cracked socket , in this context i have seen some sparks condem a socket simply due to a small defect on a corner..I think we must all agree that this would not warrant any codeing at all. I accept that there is a proportion of the trade that overdo the codeing in order to milk the job. In my opinion there are very few defects that warrant a code 1 and not many more that attract a code 2, the vast number of faults will be code 3 or Further investigation required. This does not of course mean that a never ending list of code 3s will not result in an unsatisfactory report it will, but the overuse of code 1 & 2 should not be used simply as a catch all to produce an unsatisfactory result and hence unwarranted rectification works.

And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

 

[Brian Taylor]

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]


And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

Well ideally yes but I have had cases in the last where a customer has requested that not rectification works were carried out and in addition informed me that to isolate the installation (which would have been the best thing)would have been a restraint of his trade ( he put dog food in bags) obviously dogs are more important that his staff

 

[Brian Taylor]

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]


And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

Would agree that a cable buried in a wall is a code 3 at the most

 

[Ian1981]

WRONG...Recommendation only, if the client says no then no

Tell me where it says it’s recommendation Only for an SPD please?
Think you’ll find it doesn’t and what’s with the attitude?

 

[mattg4321]

"except for single dwelling units where the total value of the installation and equipment therein doesn’t justify such protection"

It depends how you read this.

1. If you read it as a blunt statement of fact - it can be read to mean single dwelling units don't need an SPD fitted as the total value of installation and equipment doesn't justify it.

This interpretation is backed up by the fact a risk assessment isn't even required to omit an SPD.


2. If you read it as a question. If this is the case it's poorly/wrongly worded. Perhaps it should read

"except for single dwelling units, but only where the total value of the installation and equipment therein doesn’t justify such protection"



My take on it is number 1. SPD not required. Either way there are no guidelines as to what justifies fitting one. Sure you can ask the customer, but they are normally clueless about SPD and usually want to save the money in my experience (the old "I've never had a problem before"). I very rarely end up fitting SPD's in domestic currently in light of the above.

It should be just made mandatory now in my opinion. They're not that expensive so lets just save all the confusion.

 

[mattg4321]

If anyone is going to dislike my above post, you should probably provide an explanation. Willing to listen to an alternative viewpoint. I believe I’ve just summarised the situation with facts.

 

[Vortigern]

I think we should also ban people cooking as by far and away it is the main source of fires and fatalities i the UK re electrical fires. Just can't trust 'em Nanny, pass a law banning cooking and all cooking appliances. In fact don't even let people have electric it is far too dangerous.

 

[AJshep]

IMO the statement about SPDs in the regs could be clearer.

"except for single dwelling units where the total value of the installation and equipment therein doesn’t justify such protection"

How do you justify that?
A small SPD CU can be purchased for around £50, a more expensive Wylex main Isolator with SPD can be purchased from TLC for £140 labour costs for a mornings work is approx £150, So if you work on the generous sum of £300- £ 400 installed and fitted then anyone with a smart phone, washing machine, fridges, freezers, TV, PC, Boiler should have SPDs installed.

 

[radiohead]

I think the argument here is really only about how it's worded.
The fact is that Bs7671 allows the decision over whether to install an SPD in a dwelling to be made by the installer.
Therefore an SPD in a dwelling cannot possibly be deemed to be required.
Whether the term 'recommended' is appropriate is debatable, but I read it that Bs7671 says they should be installed unless they cannot be justified on cost grounds, which can be interpreted as 'recommended'!
I await my dislike with keen anticipation.

 

[Ian1981]

Bs7671 uses the terms ‘consideration’ , ‘recommended’ and ‘shall’ throughout the regulations for determining if things are required, recommended is used as in for an AFDD in chapter 42, I cannot see where it says recommended or considered ,either of these terms for installing SPD’s for domestic dwellings it simply says not required where the cost therin etc etc.
so how Does that interpretate As recommended?
You install them if required or you don’t.
You are the designer of the installation, it’s surely your call to make?

It’s also worth baring in mind that they are required in a domestic installation if one the 4 indents in regulation 443.3 is relevant ie indent number 1 if say medical equipment is being used by the homeowner.

 

[mattg4321]

What about in an unoccupied property though?

It might be occupied later by an old lady with no electronic equipment. On the other hand it might be occupied by an IT/AV enthusiast with expensive equipment.

This particular regulation is a joke. If I don’t fit an SPD, nobody can tell me i ‘should have fitted an SPD’ because it’s so open to interpretation. Asking the customer is a bit of a joke too. Cop out on behalf of IET/scams who are suggesting this as they cocked up the wording.

Like I said before it should be changed. Make it mandatory for all new consumer units. Or make it clearly optional the same as AFDD’s are or ‘all RCBO’ boards

 

[Ian1981]

We as a company do not give the customer an option, we simply fit it.
It’s hardly a massive price increase.

 

[mattg4321]

Nothing wrong with that.

Doesn’t mean there is a requirement to fit them though. You don’t need to ask the customer. You don’t need to do a risk assessment.

Similar situation to RCBO vs dual RCD.

Interesting that the wholesalers I use say that they still sell far more non SPD boards than ones with SPD fitted.

 

[richy3333]

We as a company do not give the customer an option, we simply fit it.
It’s hardly a massive price increase.

We're the same. Never had a customer quibble or argue about it. We explain what they are for and they're always happy to have it fitted. With the budget brands like Fusebox and SPD used to be something like £30.00 trade.

 

[Ian1981]

Nothing wrong with that.

Doesn’t mean there is a requirement to fit them though. You don’t need to ask the customer. You don’t need to do a risk assessment.

Similar situation to RCBO vs dual RCD.

Interesting that the wholesalers I use say that they still sell far more non SPD boards than ones with SPD fitted.

Im not saying a blanket statement that they must be installed, but I do not see them as a recommendation only, they are required or they are not.

 

[mattg4321]

Exactly. They are required in all installations other than single dwelling units.

In single dwelling units they are not required

 

[Markyd]

Tell me where it says it’s recommendation Only for an SPD please?
Think you’ll find it doesn’t and what’s with the attitude?

Single dwelling ie House is recommendation only...client says no then no....I dont even ask just fit them...But in the regs its recommendation only....And just because someone says your Wrong doesnt mean they have an attitude

 

[Ian1981]

Single dwelling ie House is recommendation only...client says no then no....I dont even ask just fit them...But in the regs its recommendation only....And just because someone says your Wrong doesnt mean they have an attitude

It was more the capital letters WRONG as if to make a point, comes across to me as being blatantly rude to be honest.
I disagree with the whole recommendation bit but there you go, no hard feelings.

 

[Simon47]

I can give a few anecdotal data points on this ...
At a previous job, the bosses had a nice house out in the sticks - overhead for both lecky and phone. They regularly lost equipment to lightning surges - but ONLY equipment connected to mains and phone (e.g. the fax machine). I don't recall any kit loslost that wasn't connected to both services. According to the regs, high risk and needs SPD - even though anyone who understands the subject will tell you it's as much use as a chocolate teapot if installed as per the regs.
Conversely, round here it's all underground services so naff all risk. The main risk is likely to be loss of PEN and over-voltage to sone users - for which an SPD is no help (it'll either blow it's fuses, or conflagrate itself).

For the general case, an SPD isn't likely to be much help unless you route all services via one point - and connect SPDs between each service and a co-located common earth point. Just a few feet of 10mm bonding cable might as well not be there when talking about kightning induced surges.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Just playing devils advocate a little, but when do we generically start coding no RCD as a C2? There must be some electrical practises that were OK 70 years ago but no longer are today, slowly over time they become unacceptable. At some point it has to become unacceptable to have cables buried <50mm without RCD protection, and it looks like this is slowly becoming the case.

 

[Darkwood]

Confusion is a deliberate part of regulations, ambiguity is by design as the industry makes a lot of money from spin off books to give a better understanding of the regulations, if they made the regs clearer to start with we wouldn't have so much confusion but there again our industry regulation writers wouldn't be making as much money from there published guidances.

 

[Markyd]

It was more the capital letters WRONG as if to make a point, comes across to me as being blatantly rude to be honest.
I disagree with the whole recommendation bit but there you go, no hard feelings.

Oh sorry for that..caps lock was on turned it off and carried on typing.....totally agree about spd thats why i just fit them as standard.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Pedants corner: It's important to understand the difference between a "Hazard Analysis" and a "Risk Assessment" a risk assessment is only required if a hazard analysis has been carried out and a risk assessment is deemed to be necessary, the hazard analysis comes first, does not have to be in writing, but should be noted somewhere that the hazard analysis has been carried out and there aren't any risks that require a risk assessment to be produced.