PIR/EICR

[RMS]

For further investigation I might put down some thing lack of sleeving on switch lines for example.

I've read this recently but can't remember where.

I fail to understand how this would require further investigation unless you intended to rectify.

If I come across this on a visual inspection then I would simply assign a C3. It fails to present danger in my opinion and I don't see the point in removing all switches and luminaries to put right.

When removing a switch its clearly obvious to assume it consists of live parts / cables.

 

[vibrobullit407]

Fair enough. Thanks.

It seems slightly odd that one should always 'recommend improvement' when there is any lack of compliance with the current BS7671, when BS7671 itself acknowledges that things which are compliant with older editions (but not the current edition) are not necessarily 'unsafe' - i.e. the regs themselves presumably would not necessarily always 'recommend' bringing an installation up to current standards on safety grounds.

Kind Regards, John.

Well this is where differing opinions come into play. Not everyone will fill the EICR exactly the same. I would mark down "improvement recommended" as in my opinion I would recommend bringing up to current BS7671. As the wording on the form is "recommend" it does not make a necessary requirement, just a recommendation.

Its the same with the old PIR. Consistency of codes and recommendations will always differ from spark to spark.

 

[starspark]

Why the eye roll??
I was asking a question. Is that problematic to your routine mr p?
Funny you say those they were discussed in something i was in the other day were you there?!!

 

[RMS]

Vibro,

The old PIR code 4 stated "Does not comply with BS7671" unlike the new EICR C3 which states "improvement Recommended".

Are the two them same?

 

[JohnW2]

For further investigation I might put down some thing like no fly leads to back boxes without a fixed lug, lack of sleeving on switch lines for example.

They sound like very well-defined issues. What 'further investigation' of them would you have in mind?!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[starspark]

Well this is where differing opinions come into play. Not everyone will fill the EICR exactly the same. I would mark down "improvement recommended" as in my opinion I would recommend bringing up to current BS7671. As the wording on the form is "recommend" it does not make a necessary requirement, just a recommendation.

Its the same with the old PIR. Consistency of codes and recommendations will always differ from spark to spark.

Thats why i asked as different people will have differing opinions.
You seem to be giving the exact possible F/I OR C3 discussion my tutor was saying the other day. its uncanny!!

 

[JohnW2]

Well this is where differing opinions come into play. Not everyone will fill the EICR exactly the same. I would mark down "improvement recommended" as in my opinion I would recommend bringing up to current BS7671. As the wording on the form is "recommend" it does not make a necessary requirement, just a recommendation.

So are you saying that you would personally 'recommend' that all UK electrical installations should be brought into compliance with the current edition/amendment of BS7671 whenever a new one appears? If so, do you think that reasonable, realistic or even necessary?

What wories me a bit about this, and hence the change from 1/2/3/4 to C1/C2/C3, is that it makes it much more difficult for owners of electrical installations to 'see the wood for the trees' - i.e. to ascertain what, in the opinion of a realistic electrician, really should be considered for improvement, for reasons other than compliance with the current regs - in essence, I suppose, the difference between the old codes 3 and 4.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[vibrobullit407]

For further investigation I might put down some thing lack of sleeving on switch lines for example.

I've read this recently but can't remember where.

I fail to understand how this would require further investigation unless you intended to rectify.

If I come across this on a visual inspection then I would simply assign a C3. It fails to present danger in my opinion and I don't see the point in removing all switches and luminaries to put right.

When removing a switch its clearly obvious to assume it consists of live parts / cables.

I can see where you are coming from. If I found on my 10 percent of installation inspection no switch line identification I would mark it down as F/I as I feel I would have to investigate further to see the extent of this. With out further investigation I would not be able to identify whether or not all switch lines in the installation were sleeved of not. But I suppose it could be marked down as a C3 as no danger is present and a recommendation for improvement would suffice.

Comes down to interpretation again I feel.

 

[vibrobullit407]

For further investigation I might put down some thing like no fly leads to back boxes without a fixed lug, lack of sleeving on switch lines for example.

They sound like very well-defined issues. What 'further investigation' of them would you have in mind?!

Kind Regards, John.

As I am carrying out an inspection of 10 percent of the installation I feel that I would have to "further investigate" other back boxes for extent that would pull me out of the recommended 10 percent! Same as with switch line identification.

 

[starspark]

So are you saying that you would personally 'recommend' that all UK electrical installations should be brought into compliance with the current edition/amendment of BS7671 whenever a new one appears? If so, do you think that reasonable, realistic or even necessary?

He is obviously in it for the long haul John.
Bet his customers arent to pleased with his 1 day eicr turning into 3 day 2 grand rectifications or rewires!!
I think he maybe a little green bless him.
And careful you can clearly see from previous posts and threads that you shouldnt disagree as he doesnt take it well!!

 

[JohnW2]

If I found on my 10 percent of installation inspection no switch line identification I would mark it down as F/I as I feel I would have to investigate further to see the extent of this. With out further investigation I would not be able to identify whether or not all switch lines in the installation were sleeved of not.

Does that mean that if you found that all switch lines were unsleeved, you would then code differently from if you found that only 10% of them were unsleeved? If this lack of sleeving is going to be regarded as a significant safety issue (which is obviously pretty debatable), then surely just one in an installation would be unacceptable?

It sounds to me as if what you're really advocating is to use "F/I" as an EICR equivalent of code 4 !

Kind Regards, John.

 

[starspark]

It sounds to me as if what you're really advocating is to use "F/I" as an EICR equivalent of code 4 !

Kind Regards, John.

Couldnt agree more Johnw2.
Also I think a lot of this comes down to common sense really.
As i stated previously just how far is one willing to go for what some may deem trivial items which cost the customer money and electrician time when a simple c3 can be noted.

 

[JohnW2]

Couldnt agree more Johnw2. Also I think a lot of this comes down to common sense really. As i stated previously just how far is one willing to go for what some may deem trivial items which cost the customer money and electrician time when a simple c3 can be noted.

That's all very well, but by putting them down as C3 you are expressing your professional opinion that 'improvement is necessary'. Can you really put your hand on your heart and say that, were it not for the 'regs' (and the reduced list of coding options on an EICR), you would really feel it necessary or appropriate to recommend that a customer spent good money on having little bits of brown or red sleeving put on the switch lines in all their light switches?

Let's face it, if it's a hazard to anyone, the lack of sleeving will only be a hazard to those who take the switch plate off with the circuit energised, and no-one should be doing that if they don't realise that all conductors going to a switch are potentially live. Indeed, anyone who takes a switch plate off whilst the cicuit is still energised and believes that a blue or black insulated conductor is 'safe to touch' most certainly shouldn't be doing it!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[vibrobullit407]

So are you saying that you would personally 'recommend' that all UK electrical installations should be brought into compliance with the current edition/amendment of BS7671 whenever a new one appears? If so, do you think that reasonable, realistic or even necessary?

As a "recommendation" on the installations I inspect then I would recommend this. My interpretation is that the old code 4 is incorporated into the new code C3.

He is obviously in it for the long haul John.
Bet his customers arent to pleased with his 1 day eicr turning into 3 day 2 grand rectifications or rewires!!
I think he maybe a little green bless him.
And careful you can clearly see from previous posts and threads that you shouldnt disagree as he doesnt take it well!!

I would not say that I am a little green as I am an electrician who carried out periodic inspections and EICR's. Getting to grips with the new forms does not make me so.

Are you in fact an electrician as the only technical advice I have seen you give has been blatantly wrong and of no use. Your systematic questioning with no answers of your own is becoming tiresome and boring. Do you carry out EICR's? do you have any of your own ideas what codes you would assign? Do you just agree with who ever posts before you and say "you beat me to it"? As for being in it for the long haul, then yes as this is a discussion, so why don't you join in with your own views on the "topic",not on forum members. And finally you are wrong I actually enjoy it when people disagree because it then turns into an informative discussion where every one else can take part and post there own views which in turn helps other peoples understanding as well as my own!

 

[RMS]

As i stated previously just how far is one willing to go for what some may deem trivial items which cost the customer money and electrician time when a simple c3 can be noted.

So you would also recommend that the customer have the work carried out in order to bring the installation up to the current wiring regulations.

Can you see what JohnW2 is getting at?