PIR/EICR

[JohnW2]

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.

Thanks. You've answered the first part of my question, but not the second. Do you think that it is reasonable, realistic or necessary to recommend (i.e. advise) every householder or houseowner to spend their money having their electrical installation 'updated, as necessary, to current BS7671' every time a new addition of BS7671, or an amendment thereto, is published?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[vibrobullit407]

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.

In effect you are right as it does not pose a "safety issue". Perhaps I am wrong to code this down as a F/I. Maybe in this instance a code of C3 would be more beneficial as a "recommendation" not an issue that requires rectification. This is something that I would have put down on a PIR as a code 4.

I printed off some literature last month to help me understand the difference between the PIR and EICR which indicates that F/I should be logged for departures from BS7671 that are safe and do not need rectifying.

I have found this a bit confusing as has been pointed out if you find something that does not need rectifying but does not comply with 17th edition then it should be logged as F/I even though there would be no investigation!

 

[vibrobullit407]

Thanks. You've answered the first part of my question, but not the second. Do you think that it is reasonable, realistic or necessary to recommend (i.e. advise) every householder or houseowner to spend their money having their electrical installation 'updated, as necessary, to current BS7671' every time a new addition of BS7671, or an amendment thereto, is published?

Kind Regards, John.

This again can be a bit confusing as I feel that I do use C3 for something that does not comply with the current regs that does not give arise to danger. This shows on the form that I "recommend" improvement as I feel that I have to note it down as a departure. But as it is a "recommendation" then it does not require rectification. This is not asking the customer to spend money to bring the installation up to current regs. It is just confirmation that I am showing on the form that work could be done to bring the installation up to current edition.

 

[JohnW2]

I printed off some literature last month to help me understand the difference between the PIR and EICR which indicates that F/I should be logged for departures from BS7671 that are safe and do not need rectifying. I have found this a bit confusing ...

I obviously don't know what you printed off, or where it came from, but I reckon that to call it 'confusing' is a serious understatement, since it makes absolutely no sense whatsover. 'Further investigation' surely means precisely what it says, and should not be used for something which doesn't require any further investigation, but ought to be code 4, had they not done away with it? You may, like me, feel that code 4 should not have gone, but that doesn't mean that you can or should use some inappropriate means (ticking a 'further investigation' box) to indicate what you feel should be 'code 4'!!

Would you, in a similar fashion, 'code' missing CU labels as 'F/I' - and, if so, what 'further investigation' would be possible in that case?

As has been said by others, I think that what is needed is a bit of common sense.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

This again can be a bit confusing as I feel that I do use C3 for something that does not comply with the current regs that does not give arise to danger. This shows on the form that I "recommend" improvement as I feel that I have to note it down as a departure. But as it is a "recommendation" then it does not require rectification.

I think you may be underestimating the way in which many of your customers are likely to interpret a 'recommendation'. When a qualified professional gives a 'recommendation', then many will feel that they are being told that, in the professional opinion of that person, they ought to spend their money on having the 'recommended' work done. Is that the meaning you always mean to convey when you code something as C3?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[vibrobullit407]

Would you, in a similar fashion, 'code' missing CU labels as 'F/I' - and, if so, what 'further investigation' would be possible in that case?

Missing CU labels I code as a C3 as I would if there was no circuit details at the CU, as I would "recommend" that they should be placed there.

 

[vibrobullit407]

I think you may be underestimating the way in which many of your customers are likely to interpret a 'recommendation'. When a qualified professional gives a 'recommendation', then many will feel that they are being told that, in the professional opinion of that person, they ought to spend their money on having the 'recommended' work done. Is that the meaning you always mean to convey when you code something as C3?

Kind Regards, John.

When I log a C3 what I am saying is that the installation could be brought up to current BS7671 but there is no requirement for it as there is no inherent danger. When I hand over a EICR with C3's I also have written on the front page in section E "satisfactory". Just underneath in section F the wording is "Observations classified as ‘Improvement recommended’ (Code C3) should be given due consideration." This does not state that it is a requirement and section E states that the installation is "satisfactory".

 

[JohnW2]

When I log a C3 what I am saying is that the installation could be brought up to current BS7671 but there is no requirement for it as there is no inherent danger.

We're only talking about an EICR, so there is no 'requirement' to have rectification done even if there is a string of C1s. However, as before, what you write above may be 'what you are saying' but, as I said before, I think that many customers will interpret a 'recommendation' from a qualified professional a bit differently from that ....

When I hand over a EICR with C3's I also have written on the front page in section E "satisfactory". Just underneath in section F the wording is "Observations classified as ‘Improvement recommended’ (Code C3) should be given due consideration." This does not state that it is a requirement and section E states that the installation is "satisfactory".

All of that will help a bit, but I still think what I wrote above applies. Furthermore, if there are some C1s and/or C2s, the 'satisfactory' box will not be ticked, which may further confuse recipients of the EICR in relation to the C3s.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[vibrobullit407]

A C1 on an EICR requires immediate attention as you would have identified a seriously dangerous situation and I would not just tell the customer, I would make safe immediately as a mater of safety. If that meant isolation of the supply then so be it. I could not walk away from a C1 and leave the high risk of electrocution.

C2's would be stated as unsatisfactory by deleting satisfactory not ticking a box. If the customer understands this then they should surely understand satisfactory shouldn't they?

Any sensible person who receives an EICR that is satisfactory should identify that the installation has passed and that the recommendations are exactly that, a "recommendation". The wording on the front page describes what the codes mean in relation to the installation.

When the report is handed over I am more than willing to talk to the customers any issues they have with regards to the report and explain accordingly.

 

[RMS]

We're only talking about an EICR, so there is no 'requirement' to have rectification done even if there is a string of C1s.

Obviously you are not able to issue a satisfactory report with any C1 or C2's.

If you decided that an observation was a C1 then you should advise the client immediately and in writing in order to satisfy the duties imposed by the Electricity at Work Regs. You could also issue a Danger Notification.

I completely agree with you about removing the code 4 as a C3 (Improvement recommended) can be misleading when claiming the observation fails to meet the requirements of BS7671 but does not give rise to danger.

 

[JohnW2]

If you decided that an observation was a C1 then you should advise the client immediately and in writing in order to satisfy the duties imposed by the Electricity at Work Regs. You could also issue a Danger Notification.

All true, and all very sensible. However, my point to vibro was that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no (legal) 'requirement' for the owner of the installation to do anything about any of that, even a Danger Notification - let's face it, in the case of private residential prpoerties, there is no 'requirement' for EICRs to be done in the first place.

I don't know for sure but, as far as I am aware, to do as vibro suggested and remedy a CI, or even 'isolate the supply', as a result of EICR findings, without the consent/agreement of the owner of the installation would not be legally possible (akin to going to a doctor for a routine checkup and being told that you were not going to be allowed to go home until your kidney had been removed!). In the final analysis, I imagine that an electrician could contact the DNO and ask that a dangerous installation be disconnected?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RMS]

John your probably right. I would hope that most customers would understand the risks and allow for the inspector to act immediately and make safe.

It may be worth agreeing this with the customer/client in writing prior to carrying out the inspection. You could state that if you were to find anything that presented a danger that you would remove it or make safe up to a value of £?.

The NICEIC test sheet information does not suggest or indicate that the inspector should make safe any C1s as far as i'm aware.

Vibro, you may be be spending time making safe at you own cost. Would you not at least discuss this with the customer or you QS before hand or do you work for yourself?

 

[starspark]

Vibro, you may be be spending time making safe at you own cost. Would you not at least discuss this with the customer or you QS before hand or do you work for yourself?

Whatever it is i bet he is costing himself or company hours and people a fortune!!!

 

[JohnW2]

John your probably right. I would hope that most customers would understand the risks and allow for the inspector to act immediately and make safe.

Of course. I was merely pointing out that, as far as I am aware, nothing 'requires' (forces) a customer to allow non-agreed work to be undertaken or to pay for it being undertaken.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[vibrobullit407]

Vibro, you may be be spending time making safe at you own cost. Would you not at least discuss this with the customer or you QS before hand or do you work for yourself?

Depending on the time implication and cost of materials would be a factor of whether or not I would discuss with my QS before or after rectification. If there was a fault (C1) on the DNO's supply/equipment I would stay at the property and contact my QS to explain that the distributor needs to be contacted as a matter of urgency and explain to the customer what is happening. JownW2 is probably right in the sense that legally I might be in the wrong for isolating a supply but if there was a high chance of death I would stand by my actions. I certainly would not carry on with an EICR if a C1 was found as it would need rectifying before I could carry on as it would also present a danger to myself.