testing existing installations to current edition of BS 7671

[Deleted member 26818]

So it changed to the all encompassing RCD protection for sockets outlets of 20amp and below? Therefore you would C3 as it's not my place to opine whether it can or will be used to supply outdoor equipment?

To an extent yes.
There were two major changes intended to remove ambiguity.
First being the phrase "could reasonably be expected" was removed, the second being a requirement for all mobile (portable) equipment used outdoors to be provided with RCD protection irrespective of the method of connection to the supply.
However, as it was a requirement in both the 15th and the 16th editions for a socket-outlet which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors, many installations without such RCD protection would not have complied with the Regulations in force at the time of their design/construction.
As such there would be nothing preventing a code C2 being applied.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have never been advised to have this Guide, maybe the Bodies recommend it to those who need a bit of "guidance".

Been a while since I checked, but it used to be, and likely still is the case, that all of the registration bodies' websites will have a link or a download option for the BPGs.

 

[Risteard]

I am certain that you are just as able as I am to read the guidance in the BPGs and spot examples.
One example that springs to mind is in relation to lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower.
The BPG advises a code C3 where the location has supplementary bonding, whereas code C2 if there is no supplementary bonding.

In other words it doesn't suggest that the coding should be based on installation date so my point stands.

 

[westward10]

Been a while since I checked, but it used to be, and likely still is the case, that all of the registration bodies' websites will have a link or a download option for the BPGs.

It is not a required document, the only Guide I have been asked to obtain is the Only Site Guide which is a total waste of money as it sits on the shelf never opened.

 

[Midwest]

I don't do EICR's.
I have been reading this thread, but can't quite understand what the recent debate is about.

A) Is it on one side, that an installation should be inspected & tested to the edition of BS7671 that applied at the time that the installation was installed.

B) Whilst the other, that an installation should be inspected & tested to the current edition of BS7671, irrespective of the date of installation.

C) The classification codes, should be applied accordingly as in A).

Just curious?

 

[Richard Burns]

I don't do EICR's.
I have been reading this thread, but can't quite understand what the recent debate is about.

A) Is it on one side, that an installation should be inspected & tested to the edition of BS7671 that applied at the time that the installation was installed.

B) Whilst the other, that an installation should be inspected & tested to the current edition of BS7671, irrespective of the date of installation.

C) The classification codes, should be applied accordingly as in A).

Just curious?

I think the initial approach from the OP was that he had been instructed previously, and incorrectly, to test to the edition applicable at the installation date and was now interested to gain guidance on coding a lack of 30mA RCD protection where the current regulations require this as additional protection as he is now inspecting and testing to the current edition of the wiring regulations.

The thread has then provided various opinions on various coding issues including 30mA RCD protection and given a range of ways of coding considering approaches that cover most options of either just current edition or both current and previous editions of the wiring regulations and also include considerations of the validity of the best practice guide from ESF.

And just to add my opinion:

I believe that most electricians would agree that inspection and testing is completed by reference to the current edition of the wiring regulations.
I then think that it is up to the inspector to assess the installation, or parts of it, from a safety standpoint to apply his experienced engineering judgement on whether the installation poses a hazard or potential hazard that may place the users of the installation at risk.
The level of risk that the inspector decides on will generate an appropriate code for the hazard.

In order to provide as consistent response as possible (though, as shown by this thread, consistency is not good) non compliance with the current regulations should be considered; by definition a compliant situation should not pose a risk; conversely a non compliant situation may or may not pose a significant risk depending on circumstance.

Electrical Safety First, in conjunction with major electrical organisations, has produced the best practice guide to provide an industry standard from which to base the inspectors coding, though the circumstances of each installation are different this can provide guidance on commonly accepted approaches.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I believe this discussion is/was about whether the severity of an observational code should differ depending on when an installation was designed/constructed.

 

[Midwest]

I believe this discussion is/was about whether the severity of an observational code should differ depending on when an installation was designed/constructed.

As I said before, I do not do EICR's, I haven't undergone any such training, as such my opinion is not based on experience or qualification. But here's my two pennyworth.

If an inspector is to base an opinion or observation based upon earlier editions of BS7671, as opposed to the current edition, he or she would need to have a recollection or access to those previous additions to make that judgment. For a newly qualified inspector, that might be problematic. Also, an inspector would need to know the exact date of the installation, so it could be cross referenced to the appropriate edition of BS7671. If an inspector was asked to assess an installation installed in 1964, would it be sensible to code the installation to the level of the 13th edition?

To an unqualified 'inspector' like myself, it seems too problematic & unreliable, to base opinions on standards from the past, more easily scaled to the current standards. If, in a few years time, when I hang up my snips, and then ask for an electrician to assess the safety of the wiring in my retirement home, I would expect those opinions to be based on the most recent & modern standards, and not those of yesteryear. Whilst I can see some lee way in both sides of the argument, plastic consumer units for example, I think its unrealistic to code things differently, because of an installations age.

Just my opinion.

 

[westward10]

I think this is always going to create mixed views and it is only the inspection part and the Coding which creates this. I don't believe the BPG holds any validity but is a handy tool for those who lack experience in these matters, this then begs the question should they be undertaking such tasks especially on older installations where they lack the ability to date the original install. As with anything gaining knowledge working alongside more seasoned electricians is invaluable when assessing older installations and wiring systems. BS7671 has never given advise on Category or Coding applications although it does now say lack of additional rcd protection should be given a minimum Code 3 entry, but this isn't specific.

 

[kingeri]

I was looking at an install done to the 16th (by my dad!), in 2006 so not that old, and it had the usual split load board with downstairs sockets and shower on RCD side. I wasn't doing a periodic, I was adding a few sockets upstairs, but I did think about this thread, and mentioned to the client the benefits of spending a bit to bring the installation up to a safer condition. It was easy enough to add RCD protection to the relevant circuits pretty cheaply within the existing Wylex CU, using bits I had in the car (a couple of RCBOs). I considered this prudent, to give him that option. My point is, I considered this worth mentioning, but never even thought of mentioning other non-compliances with the current edition of BS7671, most notably the plastic CU. Would anyone else have gone that step further and recommended a board change? I doubt it. That is the fine line between using judgement and integrity to recommend honest upgrades that offer genuine safety advantages, and milking customers for an extra bit of coin. He did say that the last spark he had in to fit an outside light had tried to persuade him to change his board.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The problem here, is that the current Regulations state in the introduction:
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."
Code C1: Danger present. Risk of injury. Immediate remedial action required.
Code C2: Potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required.
Code C3: Improvement recommended.
Either a code C1 or C2 would indicate that an installation is unsafe for continued use.
A code C3 would indicate that an installation is not unsafe for continued use, but improvement would increase safety.

Take for instance a 3 bed semi with front and rear gardens with an electrical installation designed and constructed to the 16th edition.
It has a split board with 3 circuits protected by a single RCD, all the other circuits are unprotected.
The 3 protected circuits are downstairs sockets, kitchen sockets and the cooker.
The unprotected circuits are boiler, shower, downstairs lighting and upstairs lighting.

The 3 protected circuits are fine, they comply with both the 16th and the 17th editions.
The unprotected circuits however only comply with the 16th.
There are two circuits (shower and upstairs lighting)which serve a location containing a bath or shower, both would require RCD protection to comply with the 17th.
All of the unprotected circuits may also not comply with the 17th, if any of the cables are concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm.
The unprotected circuits are 'Potentially dangerous' or unsafe for continued use, which suggests a code C2 should be applied.
However the introduction states that because the installation complied with the Regulations ate the time of construction, they are not necessarily unsafe for continued use, which would indicate we should use a code C3.

Some will say that the phrase 'not necessarily unsafe' does not mean safe.
They are entitled to their opinion, but that is not the opinion of the IET.
The 17th edition was introduced on the 1st of January 2008 and came into effect on the 1st of July 2008.
During those 6 months, they allowed for installations to be designed to the 16th edition.
If the IET believed the 16th edition to be unsafe, they would not have allowed installations to be designed to the 16th for those 6 months.

 

[westward10]

No upstairs sockets in this house then.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No upstairs sockets in this house then.

Sockets and their intended use is another kettle of fish.

 

[westward10]

Sockets and their intended use is another kettle of fish.

Your fictitious house has no upstairs sockets.

 

[Midwest]

I note that the BPG linked by Murdoch suggests a C3 code for sockets without RCD protection and a C2 for those likely to be used for portable/mobile equipment outside, or o/s zones in special location?

I forgot what the argument was about now. Gives a hand down here Maureen! Now you gave me a tenner.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I note that the BPG linked by Murdoch suggests a C3 code for sockets without RCD protection and a C2 for those likely to be used for portable/mobile equipment outside, or o/s zones in special location?

Yes socket-outlets do appear to confuse many people.
The BPG advises a code C3 for socket-outlets that do not comply with the requirements of the 17th edition, but C2 for those that do not comply with the requirements of the 16th edition.
Which edition of the Regulations are we using when conducting the I&T?

 

[westward10]

Is this how it is worded or is that your spin, pardon the pun

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Is this how it is worded or is that your spin, pardon the pun

Not sure what you mean or what the wording used matters?

 

[Dave the spark]

Well, this thread has proven ambiguity rules supreme and opinions are differing. It's given me a right good chuckle though. Bravo.

 

[westward10]

Not sure what you mean or what the wording used matters?

Well does the BPG refer to sockets installed under the 16th or 17th Editions or is this your wording.