C3 or not C3?, that is the question

[JohnW2]

In other recent and current threads, there has been a lot of discussion about what (if any) codes should be given on an EICR for things which were compliant when installed, but not compliant with current regs, and even what (if any) code should be given to things which were not compliant when installed, but are not judged to present significant danger.

BS7671 itself now says very little about EICRs (and, indeed, never uses that term), Chapter 65 ("Periodic Inspection and Testing") now consisting of little more than one page. However, there is a fair bit more said in the guidance of ('informative') Appendix 6 in the context of notes and guidances for those undertaking EICRs. This includes (my red highlighting) ...

CONDITION REPORT
Notes for the person producing the Report:
1 ..... An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded.

This seems to be indicating that a non-compliance should not be reported (hence coded) if it is not consiered that it "may give rise to danger" - and, indeed, if one takes that second sentence in isolation (which I suspect is the intention), that would remain the case even if the situation in question had not been compliant with regs, even when installed.

Of course, if one scrapes the barrel deeply enough, it can probably always be argued that anything to do with electricity "may give rise to danger" so I would think that the common sense (and probably 'intended') interpretation is that they are talking about "significant danger" (which is, of course, a subjective judgement in a good few cases).

Their apparent intention that some non-compliances with current regs should not be given any code (if it is judged that they don't present a 'significant danger') seems to be reinforced/confirmed by what seems to be the one and only place where they say that a particular (minimum) code should be given for a particular non-compliance, namely ...

CONDITION REPORT INSPECTION SCHEDULE
GUIDANCE FOR THE INSPECTOR
..... 2 Older installations designed prior to BS 7671:2018 may not have been provided with RCDs for additional protection. The absence of such protection should as a minimum be given a code C3 classification (item 5.12).

The implication of that statement is presumably an acknowledgement of the fact that, without it, it would have been possible for someone not to give any code for the absence of RCD protection.

Of course, being in an 'informative' Appendix, none of the above is more than 'guidance' (not that compliance even with BS7671 itself is 'mandatory').

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think you know what I would say but may I first ask, re:

CONDITION REPORT
Notes for the person producing the Report:
1 ..... An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded.

Do you think that, without a safety device which is now required, the device, or whatever it is, now may give rise to danger even though that is all there previously was?


To use an analogy you sometimes choose; do you think that not wearing a seat belt may give rise to danger?

 

[JohnW2]

I think you know what I would say but may I first ask, re: ... Do you think that, without a safety device which is now required, the device, or whatever it is, now may give rise to danger even though that is all there previously was?

As I said, it's down to a matter of degree. If by "a danger" one means "a risk, regardless of how incredibly small the magnitude might be", then I suppose the answer would usually have to be 'yes'. However, I think more sensibly, if one regards it as meaning " significant danger" then, although that obviously involves a subjective decision as to what is "significant", I think that (as you are presumably implying) the answer would quite often be "No".

To use an analogy you sometimes choose; do you think that not wearing a seat belt may give rise to danger?

I'm not sure that is a very good analogy in this context. Not wearing a seatbelt obviously increases the danger/risk of someone suffering a serious of fatal injury. I suppose one might question whether, 'numerically', it was a 'significant' increase in risk/danger, given how low the probability is of any one individual ever suffering such an injury - but, again, that is necessarily a subjective judgement/opinion.

We've seen that with 'Pill scares'. Publicity of a finding that a particularly contraceptive pill, or type of such pill, may double or treble the risk of some certain (usually potentially fatal) side effect seems dramatic, and will usually result in substantial numbers being panicked into stop taking those pills (hence consequential unwanted pregnancies, and the risks associated with them). However, if the 'doubling of risk' is (as been the case with some the 'scares') the 'doubling' has been a change from "1 in 2 million" to "1 in 1 million", the many rational people would probably regard that as not being "significant".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I said, it's down to a matter of degree. If by "a danger" one means "a risk, regardless of how incredibly small the magnitude might be", then I suppose the answer would usually have to be 'yes'.

So, does that mean it "may give rise to danger"?

It doesn't say 'significant danger'.

 

[JohnW2]

So, does that mean it "may give rise to danger"?

As I said, that depends on what one means by "a danger" ...

It doesn't say 'significant danger'.

It doesn't - but, as I said, I hope (and suspect) that such is what it means/intends - since, otherwise, anything to do with electricity which is non-compliant with current regs AND most (if not all) things to do with electricity which are compliant with regs could be argued to be capable of "giving rise to a danger" in the minds of those who scrape the barrel of the "vanishingly improbable".

As I said, I hope the intent was that common sense should prevail.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, but we are talking about what you quoted.

CONDITION REPORT
Notes for the person producing the Report:
1 ..... An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded.

Does it therefore mean that everything that is non-compliant with the requirements of the current (but were compliant with previous) regulations should be recorded?

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but we are talking about what you quoted.
CONDITION REPORT
Notes for the person producing the Report:
1 ..... An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded.
Does it therefore mean that everything that is non-compliant with the requirements of the current (but were compliant with previous) regulations should be recorded?

I can't see how it can be taken to mean that.

The first sentence appears to clearly state that something which was compliant with (I assume that's what "designed to" means) an earlier edition but is not compliant with the current edition is "not necessarily unsafe" and I presume that is the same as saying that it "does not necessarily give rise to danger" - in which case, per the second sentence, that seems to mean that it "does not necessarily" need to be recorded. Do you disagree?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I can't see how it can be taken to mean that.

I thought you said it could:

The first sentence appears to clearly state that something which was compliant with (I assume that's what "designed to" means) an earlier edition but is not compliant with the current edition is "not necessarily unsafe" and I presume that is the same as saying that it "does not necessarily give rise to danger" - in which case, per the second sentence, that seems to mean that it "does not necessarily" need to be recorded. Do you disagree?

I do disagree - or the quote is contradictory.

You didn't like the seat-belt analogy, so
what about where RCDs are now required - virtually everywhere?
Should that be recorded even though compliant at the time?
If yes, why - if it does not give rise to danger or - why does that give rise to danger and other similar things do not?

 

[ericmark]

I totally agree with @JohnW2 's opening statement, and I must thank you for that. It falls into my own thoughts, in that the regulations don't really matter in an EICR your looking as the name implies at the condition, and if the condition has not changed from the last time it was inspected, then the report should be the same.

OK there are some finer points we consider, for example if the boiler has been changed since last report, and previous boiler installation instructions did not ask for RCD protection and the new boiler installation instructions as for a type A RCD, then a type A RCD should be fitted or a note made to fact not fitted, but then it should have also been raised in the minor works raised at the time of changing boiler.

But we should be provided with minor works, and installation certificates and EICR's done previously, so should be well aware of what the owner has been told in the past, so we can judge how the condition has changed.

 

[JohnW2]

I thought you said it could: .....

Are you referring to my having written "...then I suppose the answer would usually have to be 'yes' "? If so, you are taking it out of context of the words that immediately preceded, and qualified, that, namely:

IF by "a danger" one means "a risk, regardless of how incredibly small the magnitude might be",​

... and then went on to say ...

... However, I think more sensibly, if one regards it as meaning " significant danger" then, although that obviously involves a subjective decision as to what is "significant", I think that (as you are presumably implying) the answer would quite often be "No".​

I do disagree - or the quote is contradictory.

I dont't really understand what you are suggesting would be 'contradictory'.

The first sentence I quoted said that if something previously compliant is non-compliant with current regs, it is "not necessarily unsafe" for continued use, which is presumable the same as "does not necessarily give rise to danger". That "not necessarily" obviously means that it may, or may not, "give rise to danger", such that a judgement by the inspector is required to determine which applies.

IF the inspector judges that it does not give rise to danger, then, per the second sentence, it should not be recorded.

What is 'contradictory' about any of that?

You didn't like the seat-belt analogy, so what about where RCDs are now required - virtually everywhere? Should that be recorded even though compliant at the time?

As above, in the absence of the "Guidance for the Inspector" I quoted, that would be down to the judgement of the inspector as to whether it "may give rise to danger" (since, per the first sentence, it does not necessarily give rise to danger). That's something we have discussed ad infinitum, but our own opinions (or even the opinion of 'the inspector') are irrelevant in the current context because ...

... seemingly uniquely, this seems to be the one and only example of explicit guidance about coding (regardless of inspector judgment) and says that, regardless of that judgement (i.e. even if the inspector does not judge that it "may give rise to danger") it "should" be given a minimum code of C3. So, in just this one specific case, the guidance (albeit that's all it is) is 'over-riding' any contrary view/judgement the inspector may have.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

The first sentence I quoted said that if something previously compliant is non-compliant with current regs, it is "not necessarily unsafe" for continued use, which is presumable the same as "does not necessarily give rise to danger". That "not necessarily" obviously means that it may, or may not, "give rise to danger", such that a judgement by the inspector is required to determine which applies.

IF the inspector judges that it does not give rise to danger, then, per the second sentence, it should not be recorded.

What is 'contradictory' about any of that?[/quote]
It is saying that things might not necessarily be unsafe but if they may give rise to danger it should be recorded.
The quote is totally meaningless. If something is judged as 'may give rise to danger' then which edition it complied with is irrelevant.

 

[JohnW2]

It is saying that things might not necessarily be unsafe but if they may give rise to danger it should be recorded. The quote is totally meaningless. If something is judged as 'may give rise to danger' then which edition it complied with is irrelevant.

I agree with your final sentence and, more importantly, I also agree with its corollary - i.e. that if something is judged NOT to be liable to "give rise to a danger" then which (if any) edition it complied with is irrelevant - since, per the second sentence, it should not be recorded on an EICR, regardless of compliance or non-compliance with any edition(s) of the regs. ... and that is precisely what I said my OP when I wrote (with reference to the two sentences I quoted ...

This seems to be indicating that a non-compliance should not be reported (hence coded) if it is not consiered that it "may give rise to danger" - and, indeed, if one takes that second sentence in isolation (which I suspect is the intention), that would remain the case even if the situation in question had not been compliant with regs, even when installed.

However, returning to your ...

It is saying that things might not necessarily be unsafe but if they may give rise to danger it should be recorded. The quote is totally meaningless.

... I really don't understand why you regard that as meaningless. Do you perhaps not accept that things being "not necessarily be unsafe" means that they "do not necessarily give rise to danger" and that this, in turn, means that the things either 'may give rise to danger' or 'do not give rise to danger" (i.e , such that judgement is required to decide which of those two options applies in any particular case)?

If you did accept that, then you surely would also have to agree that if the inspector's judgement, in a particular case, was that the former of those options applied (i.e. that the things 'may give rise to danger') that they would have to be reported on an EICR, wouldn'y you? Not only does that seem to be what the quoted material appears to be saying, but it also seems to correspond totally with common sense - i.e. that if an inspector believes that something is potentially dangerous, he/she should report it on an EICR.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Adam_151]

This seems to be indicating that a non-compliance should not be reported (hence coded) if it is not consiered that it "may give rise to danger"

This is nitpicking, I'll admit, but such a thing technically does not exist, some defintions were changed in the 18th edition

Non-compliance. A non-conformity that may give rise to danger.

so its only actually a non-compliance if it can give rise to danger

My own personal view is that non-conformies which are not non-compliances, i.e. they do not give rise to danger should be documented when observed, but they cannot be assigned one of the three recommendation codes. Given that the forms incldued in BS7671 are merely examples, one could reasonably use a template that gave extra options of 'non-codes' to assign to such anobservation (as long as the document explained the meaning of such characters fully), such as one for a non-comformity (maybe lack of RCD protection to a server socket where you know its not been risk accessed but was labeled and compliant with 17thA3), perhaps one simply for a comment that helps explain something, but doesn't indicate the inspector is saying there is a problem with anything (i.e. the measured Zs exceeds 80% of tabulated value, but the calculation from GN3 has been carried out, and its not in excess of the actual limiting value), and maybe one for something that isn't a failure against 7671, but is likely a failure to another standard and is a suggestion that suitable assessment is carried out (such as for instance, the emergency lighting in the mains room not being functional when the cirucit was turned off)

 

[JohnW2]

This is nitpicking, I'll admit, but such a thing technically does not exist, some defintions were changed in the 18th edition

Non-compliance. A non-conformity that may give rise to danger.

so its only actually a non-compliance if it can give rise to danger

It's certainly not nit-picking, and I've been expecting someone to raise it, but I have deliberately not mentioned it myself because I thought it would probably add even more confusion to the discussion!

It seems to me to be a very strange definition that has, for some reason, crept into the 18th. It does not correspond with common sense/usage (which says that "non-compliance" mean what it says, and has got nothing to do with the consequences of non-conformity). I therefore suspect that most people are not even aware of the change in definition, such that when people talk about and discuss "non-compliance", they are still thinking simply of 'failing to comply (or conform)' with the requirements of the regulations.

I also suspect that, for example, those who wrote the notes/guidance regarding EICRs in Appendix 6 did not take on board the fact that, by not revising their wording after the new definition appeared, they may have ended up with words which now mean something different from what they did (were assumed to mean) before the new definition appeared.

My own personal view is that non-conformies which are not non-compliances, i.e. they do not give rise to danger should be documented when observed, but they cannot be assigned one of the three recommendation codes. Given that the forms incldued in BS7671 are merely examples, one could reasonably use a template that gave extra options of 'non-codes' to assign to such anobservation (as long as the document explained the meaning of such characters fully), such as one for a non-comformity ...

I agree - and in so doing you and I would really just be re-inventing the C4 which, for some reason, was removed.

However, this is probably not of major concern to landlords, particularly those (I suspect many) who will only do remedial work 'which they are forced to do', since it is clear (from guidance associated with the PRS legislation) that C3s do not have to be addressed. The real problem (for landlords) is when things (like plastic CUs) are given C2s when many/most people porobably would not agree with that.

Kind Regards, John