Does the house I let need to conform to 17th edition regs?

[JonBoardy]

Hi,

I have just let my house out and become a landlord for the first time. The house conforms to the 16th Edition of the BS 7671 regulations. The PIR report carried out on the house prior to letting identified one area of the electrics that do not conform to the 17th Edition regs (not having rcd protection in the bathroom circuits). This was flagged as a C2, urgent fix needed in the report.

Is this correct, does my house need to conform to the 17th Edition regulations in order to pass the PIR test and be deemed safe for letting? Is it correct that this has been flagged as a C2 problem to fix?

I should point out that this is the existing state of the house as it was originally built to the 16th edition of the regs, not recent work that has been carried out.

I know this may have been touched on in other forum posts, but I wanted to ask something direct here due to the state of the report on my house.

Thanks,
Jon.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No need.

As long as the supplementary bonding in the bathroom is OK it's fine.

You might want to consider finding another electrician.

 

[pjcomp]

if your property met the regulations at the time it was built and there have been no material changes since the regs were updated, it is legal and conforms as it is. There is no need to bring it up to 17th edition. If we had to change properties to meet every new reg we'd have loads of business but never do anything else - not least we'd still be rewiring all those red/black wiring looms to brown/blue.

PJ

 

[vibrobullit407]

If this electrician has coded a C2 for this then he is saying that your installation is unsatisfactory. Has he checked that supplementary bonds are there and appropriate? Ask the electrician to explain why he has C2'd this and post his reply on here.

If your supplementary bonds are in place then I personally would record it as a C3 (improvement recommended). This would still meet the satisfactory criteria.

 

[OwainDIYer]

It would be C2 if there is no supplementary bonding in a bathroom having extraneous- or exposed-conductive-parts. Where the presence of supplementary bonding cannot be confirmed by inspection, it may be verified by a continuity test (< 0.05 &#937.

 

[SimonH2]

My guess is that it won't have any supplementary bonding - I don't think it was required "back then".

If you have a consumer unit (circuit breakers rather than fuses), a quick and simple fix is to replace the MCB with an RCBO for any circuit(s) that enter the bathroom (probably only the lights). That way, the circuits are RCD protected and supplementary bonding is not required.
Alternatively, if it's practical, add some bonding.

RCBO = RCD and MCB combined into one device.

Personally, I've just gone with RCBOs for everything (I've a house and a flat I rent out). Brings them both up to 17th edition and means that should anything happen then I have the defence that everything was fully up to standard and tested. Yes, there's an element of CYA going on.

Mind you, having seen the news article about "shed with a bed" slum landlords on TV this evening, you have to wonder about the mental attitude of some grabbing b***ards we share the industry with.

 

[Risteard]

My guess is that it won't have any supplementary bonding - I don't think it was required "back then".

If the supplementary bonding is not present or adequate then he is quite correct with his assessment. However, supplementary bonding most certainly was required always in a bathroom under the 16th Edition between exposed and extraneous conductive parts.

 

[SimonH2]

Out of interest, when did the requirement for supplementary bonding come in ? I'm assuming no earlier than mid 90's if my flat and house were compliant when built - neither has any supplementary bonding in the bathroom.

 

[RMS]

It would be C2 if there is no supplementary bonding in a bathroom having extraneous- or exposed-conductive-parts. Where the presence of supplementary bonding cannot be confirmed by inspection, it may be verified by a continuity test (< 0.05 &#937.

How about if all final circuits within the location meet the required disconnection times and have additional protection by means of a 30mA RCD and all extraneous parts are effectively connected to the protective equipotential bonding?

A lack of additional protection by means of an RCD in the bathroom will result in a code 3.

A lack of supplementary bonding where all conditions of my first paragraph are not met will result in a code 2.

 

[RF Lighting]

Out of interest, when did the requirement for supplementary bonding come in ? I'm assuming no earlier than mid 90's if my flat and house were compliant when built - neither has any supplementary bonding in the bathroom.

It was certainly a requirement of the 16th edition which came in to force in 1992. I don't think it was a requirement before then. I seemed to spend half of my apprenticeship cross bonding bathrooms!

 

[SimonH2]

Ah, something else that "wasn't right" with the properties So to unsafe gas flues, I can add not to regs electrics in the bathrooms

 

[crystal ball]

Out of interest, when did the requirement for supplementary bonding come in ? I'm assuming no earlier than mid 90's if my flat and house were compliant when built - neither has any supplementary bonding in the bathroom.

I was installing showers in the mid 80s for the local board and was bonding everthing in sight

 

[JonBoardy]

Hi all,

many thanks for all the replies on this. I have been seeking some other guidance via a friend of mine who is a well qualified electrician so have some more to report.

For the supplimentary bonding. I don't know for sure, although this wasn't identified as a problem in the report. There is an entry in the section relating to 'Item(s) containing a bath or shower' (that section the C2 problem was identified in) that reads:

Presence of supplementary bonding conductors, unless not required by BS 7671: 2008 (701.415.2)

This item is checked so seems to be ok. Is this the same thing?

My friend who disagrees with the allocation of the C2 sent the report to the ECA for clarification and they replied saying that they agreed with him. This should have been classified as a C3, and not a 'potentially dangerous' C2 as is in the report.

However, the electrician who carried out the report is registered with the NICEIC, not the ECA so does not recognise this feedback. I have since sent the report to the NICEIC to get their view on this. Waiting for their reply now. Somewhat worried that there seems to be disagreement between the 2 bodies.

Thanks again, I'll keep you posted on the feedback from the NICEIC.
Jon.