EICR for home owner

[Risteard]

The first of those is rather extreme, since goodness know how far back in time one has to go for that to have been in conformity with the prevailing regs (and, as I write before, one would hope that that competent inspector would make a sensible/correct judgment about that being at least 'potentially dangerous'!).

In any event, where is it in BS7671 that there is something which over-rides its general statement that:


As above, although the non-conformity of something with current regs "does not necessarily" mean that it is unsafe for continued use, one would hope that a competent inspector's judgement would be that a fused neutral was (unsafe for continued use).

I'm not sure what your point is. It wasn't me who made the erroneous claim that Regulations cannot be retrospective. BS7671 doesn't even include the word "retrospective" in the document. It simply states that works to previous Editions may not necessarily be unsafe, ergo they also may be unsafe or require upgrading.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

since something regarded as 'non-dangerous' does not suddenly become 'dangerous' because a new book of regulations has been published.

Surely the world is full of examples of things which were considered OK and now are not? Lead in petrol was thought safe, cigarettes were thought safe, raw sewage dumped into rivers was though safe, CFCs in aerosols was thought safe. Extreme examples but does it never happen with electrical regulations where they say "this is no good, its not safe enough" and they change them?

 

[JohnW2]

Surely the world is full of examples of things which were considered OK and now are not? Lead in petrol was thought safe, cigarettes were thought safe, raw sewage dumped into rivers was though safe, CFCs in aerosols was thought safe. Extreme examples but does it never happen with electrical regulations where they say "this is no good, its not safe enough" and they change them?

Of course, and that's a point I very often make myself whenever people say (as some do repeatedly) that something which would have been compliant with any previous edition of BS7671 should not be considered 'potentially dangerous' today.

However, I think you may be missing my point.

For a start, different from all the examples you cite, knowledge about electricity (and dangers associated with electricity) has not, in general, changed for very many decades (although our ability to address some of those dangers has changed because of technological advances - e.g. RCDs). What has changed over time is 'our' view of what degree of risk is 'acceptable'.

However, just as something does not suddenly become dangerous because a new book of regulations is published, nor, in reality, does the view about 'acceptable levels of risk' change 'overnight', either.

The thing to realise is that (with just one very specific exception mentioned in guidance to the regulations) the coding of things on EICRs is not (contrary to what many seem to think) about conformity (or non-conformity) with any regulations but, rather, is down to the inspector's judgement as to whether any such non-conformities do, or do not, represent "danger" (C1) or "potential danger" (C2). That is obviously an individual judgement, based on a number of factors. As I implied, if something would have been conformant with regs (hence considered to be "acceptably safe") 'last week', but not today (because a new set of regs has been published), that is one of the factors which an inspector may well take into consideration.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure what your point is. It wasn't me who made the erroneous claim that Regulations cannot be retrospective.

That's true - but it was you who appeared to be citing two examples of things that you consider to be 'retrospective'.

BS7671 doesn't even include the word "retrospective" in the document. It simply states that works to previous Editions may not necessarily be unsafe, ergo they also may be unsafe or require upgrading.

Again true. In fact, the word "retrospective" is rather misleading, conformity with the requirements of even the current edition of BS7671 is not 'mandatory'.

Rather than using that word, people should probably simply say that nothing in BS7671 requires (even in a non-mandatory fashion), explicitly or implicitly, that any existing installation be brought into conformity with the current edition. Indeed, on the contrary, as the first sentence of what I quoted says:

The Regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations.

In other words, by its own admission, the current edition of BS7671 does not even apply to 'existing installations' (only to 'additions and alterations' thereto, as well as to new installations).

 

[EFLImpudence]

In other words, by its own admission, the current edition of BS7671 does not even apply to 'existing installations' (only to 'additions and alterations' thereto, as well as to new installations).

Oooh. That's interesting.

 

[JohnW2]

Oooh. That's interesting.

Indeed it is!

I have to confess that, despite all the years during which I must have been reading that sentence, it has never previously occurred to me how very relevant it might be to all the 'non retrospective' discussions!

Kind Regards, John