PIR

[Albert]

Hi,
PIR is not notifiable test, where can I find an official document or website to confirm this?

Thanks

 

[Spark123]

A Periodic Inspection Report doesn't need to be notified to your LABC if that is what you mean??
You are not desiging nor installing so doesn't come under the scope of part P.

 

[oharaf]

The building regs will be the place to look as this is where the field of Notification comes from.

 

[Albert]

Thanks, I know that, i am doing it for a long time and had an argument about that. To make my point I need something official; like an IET , one of the Competent person schemes bodies, government publication or a website of one of them that will say so.

 

[Spark123]

The building regs themselves?
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BC_Consolidated_Bldg_Regs.pdf

Design and installation
P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

 

[Albert]

Good try, I looked but there is nothing about testing and notifications.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Precisely.

 

[Taylortwocities]

IET's Guidance note 3, maybe?

http://www.theiet.org/publishing/books/wir-reg/inspection-testing-5th-edition.cfm

Includes the following:

Chapter 3 Periodic inspection and testing
3.1 Purpose of periodic inspection and testing
3.2 Necessity for periodic inspection and testing
3.3 Electricity at Work Regulations
3.4 Design
3.5 Routine checks
3.6 Required information
3.7 Frequency of inspection
3.8 Requirements for inspection and testing
3.8.1 General procedure
3.8.2 Sampling when carrying out inspection and testing
3.8.3 Scope
3.8.4 Isolation of supplies
3.9 Periodic inspection
3.9.1 Comments on individual items to be inspected
3.10 Periodic testing
3.10.1 Periodic testing general
3.10.2 Tests to be made
3.10.3 Detailed periodic testing
3.10.4 Periodic Inspection Report
3.11 Thermographic surveying

 

[dingbat]

Albert, the Building Regulations are there to try to ensure that work carried out on buildings does not impair the safety and amenity of those buildings.

An inspection and subsequent report does not involve altering an installation in any way, so PIRs are, by their nature, not of any concern to the Building Regulations or any body involved in assessing compliance of works with those regulations (except where such a report has been commissioned as part of that process).

Private inspections have nothing whatsoever to do with LABC - do surveyors have to notify every survey or valuation to LABC?

So, is somebody telling you otherwise?

 

[Albert]

Thanks to you all, even B-A-S that donated a single word (that makes sense) as usual...
Yes I Know and agree to what you all said, It is a known fact that PIRs are not notified, and we all know why we do them. There is a lot of commonsense in the replies. The problem is that in some cases to convince some one you need more than commonsense, or to show that it is missing from the building regs for a reason (as B-A-S said).

At least I have some more ideas how to convince him...may be...

 

[securespark]

An inspection and subsequent report does not involve altering an installation in any way

I see where you are coming from and I agree with you that inspections are not mentioned & therefore are not notifiable.

However, (and I don't have my copy to hand) don't the regs say something like, "Inspection shall be carried out without dismantling or with partial dismantling as required..."

So in theory (granted, you'd have to be unlucky) you could come along, do your PIR, accidentally creating (for example) a break in RF continuity that may not be picked up with subsequent live tests.

Now, you may think I'm mad, but I stumbled upon this exact scenario!

A PIR had been done and tests made on RF continuity. When the neutral conductors had been reattached to the busbar, one of them had snapped.

So it is possible to do a PIR and (albeit completely unintentionally & be unaware of it) leave the installation dangerous.

 

[rebuke]

Indeed - while doing testing after installing new CU (before anybody asks, yes notified to LABC, and while it's their responsibility to test it, just seemed easier to do it myself first), I was screwing back up a plug socket, and the faceplate screw went straight through a neutral. Obviously picked this up when doing the insulation resistance tests, but if I'd screwed the faceplate back on after the IR test, and the circuit wasn't on an RCD (this one was, but still), I may not have realised, and left things in a worse state than before...

 

[Albert]

securespark, yes this is the general message.

Dismantling in this case could be parts of the electrical installation but could be for access as well, some one need to minimize the disruption in general.

How can some one apply a good PIR for a property without records and not disconnecting, disrupting the installation? How can you apply dead tests on a circuit without disconnecting the wires from the CB?

I think that this is the point where we are expected to use our commonsense and do the famous risk assessment...