rental with no rcd.

[SUNRAY]

I don't want to get involved in political discussion (here) either. However, I don't think I agree that my statement necessarily can be generalised to 'always' in relation to the party in question. Let's face it, their previous leader brought about a catastrophic election performance for his party at least partially because he did make it pretty clear what he would do if elected to government!

In any event, the general truth is that it is far easier to be in opposition than in power, since it is far easier to find fault with and criticise the actions of others (particularly with the benefit of hindsight) than it is to get actions 'right' oneself in real time (no hindsight).

After all, we accept the concept that 'critics' may 'criticise' the works of the most admired artists, composers, chefs or whatever, even though we know that none of them could 'do better' than those they are 'criticising' - so why different for politicians or political parties?

... in other words, I suspect we might well be saying much the same if the tables were turned, and the parties currently in government and opposition were reversed - the opposition party would be identifying the faults of government, but not telling us much about 'how they could/would do things better', even if they thought they knew!

Kind Regards, John

Obviously your comments are correct however my view is the current opposition are better at hiding their suggestions than if the other situation existed.

 

[JohnW2]

Obviously your comments are correct however my view is the current opposition are better at hiding their suggestions than if the other situation existed.

You may be right (it';s impossible to know) but, as I said, it was your "always" that I was questioning, since their previous leader did not seem to 'hide his suggestions', and that was surely a significant part of the reason he damaged his parry so much, wasn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

quite - but, perhaps more to the point, maybe even a different electrician.

John I do agree with the rest of your post but, in my experience, I have seen quite a few things that in my opinion anyone presenting as an "electrician" who has appeared on site must surely have noticed things then according to the customer "never mentioned it!" .
That, on occasion, has indeed concerned me somewhat.
In other words "How could he possibly fail to have noticed that?" and " why the hack did he not mention that?" providing, of course, that the customer is being completely honest and unconfused about that meeting - I do realise that customers, sometimes, might mistakingly missunderstand what the previous electrician actually said/meant and/or might sometimes be giving me "a different version of the truth" (that last quote is one hilarious comment that the father of the Boswell family said in the sitcom of the TV prog - Bread" .

 

[Murdochcat]

Problem is that there are too many people claiming “to do electrics “, often handyman who don’t have the knowledge, competence and test kit, nor the appropriate insurances

Then there are the newly “qualified “ sparks

 

[ericmark]

I think the thread is getting off track, there are two questions:-
1) Is the property potentially dangerous? If not then end of discussion.
2) If it is what is the spark required to do? (to watch his back)
The heading is rental with no RCD, and it has been said the new landlord law says it should comply to BS 7671:2018, but it does not say the installation should be treated as new, and as we start to read BS 7671 it clearly states the design date at which it comes into effect, so within BS 7671 it basic redirects one to an older edition. So following BS 7671 if installed before 2008 only supplies outside needed RCD protection, personally I think all homes should be RCD protected, but here what we are talking about is saying another electrician was wrong for not insisting on RCD protection, and I can't really say he was wrong.

If however you feel the electrician who said it was OK was in error, then what needs doing? And I would say a simple email, text, or letter to the owner is all that is required, it must be in writing a verbal is not good enough, but a text message is still in writing.

However we are looking at a watch my back get out of jail free card. So any message sent, could end up in a court of law, so one does need to ensure it is correct. So we are looking at

another electrician had done a report on the property saying it was all ok to start with and the fusebox was fine apart from being plastic not metal

and we have no idea if the another electrician was aware the property was to be rented. Or if it was a formal EICR or an off the cuff comment.

If I was to go around a property as I did here, I would comment it's OK to start with, but when you can you will want that consumer unit/fuse box changing for one giving RCD protection, it took me around 4 to 6 months to get around to it, it was not an urgent job compared with stopping the cistern falling through the ceiling. It could wait a while, as to being plastic not metal, I was not worried about that at all.

If a spark had written to me saying the fuse box must be changed, I would have considered he was trying to get extra work, and he would be removed from my list of tradesmen to use. A casual you will need to get that changed some time I would have accepted.

I know I considered renting out my mothers old house, and I got a letting agent to tell me what needed doing, I was rather surprised at what they wanted, the work top one side of kitchen was lowered, as mother in a wheel chair, they wanted that raised again, it had a domino hot plate, they wanted that swapped to one with four heat areas instead of two, and the list went on, including removing the shower in the bedroom, and enabling the shower in the bathroom. I had an offer to buy the house, so sold it instead.

Yes some valid items raised, there were sockets in the bedroom closer than 3 meters to the shower cubical. But not were they could really get wet, technically non compliant I know, but no real danger.

So it seemed the house needed to be in a better condition to rent, than required for an owner occupier to use, but doing an EICR we don't write on it for rental or owner occupier, it is the same for both, except the owner does not need to follow any suggestions if not renting.

There should be no code C1's as if that bad the inspector should make it safe before leaving.

 

[ebee]

OK Eric.
However, when we do a EICR we must compare it to the standard that applies today, irrespective of when it was designed , which will be a liitle/ a lot longer ago then when it was installed which in turn will be a little/ a lot longer ago then when it was inspected/tested.
Against where we are today, not yesteryear, then we code it approprietly compared to todays standard and we declare it satisfasctory or not.
Bonding and indeed earthing we consider important nowadays yet in lifetimes it was not that long ago that bonding and earthing was no big deal. Our idea of satisfactory or not does not last forever, neither does an installation that actually complied a few years ago suddenly become very dangerous. But we I & T relating to todays standards.

 

[Murdochcat]

C3 is perfectly acceptable in many cases, problem is that Napit Code Breakers doesn’t agree.

NICEIC members are supposed to use the BPG



E7 boards on TNS or TNCS don’t need RCD protection

 

[ericmark]

However, when we do a EICR we must compare it to the standard that applies today

The code 4 was removed by the IET because it was misleading, we no longer have a code for would not comply with BS 7671 if it was new today. The EICR simply says if dangerous, potentially dangerous, or improvement recommended, it no longer relates to BS 7671 although one can say which rule it contravenes.

There is not requirement to be a member of NAPIT, NICEIC, or IET or even have a C&G 2391 to do an EICR, there are it seems two forms published different colours one for when covered by the scheme membership and one when it is not, but to use the pads which have NAPIT, NICEIC on them when not a member does open up a can of worms, as if one claims one is a member the onus to notify swaps from owner to the electrician, so really if not a member should not use those forms, and since a free download from IET web site no reason to use the forms.

C3 is perfectly acceptable in many cases, problem is that Napit Code Breakers doesn’t agree.

NICEIC members are supposed to use the BPG



E7 boards on TNS or TNCS don’t need RCD protection

I had not realised that Napit had it's own codes, I have always looked at best practice guide, odd the last job done in my own home was by a Napit registered guy, before the work the boiler was RCBO protected, after the work there was no RCD protection for the boiler supply, and I have a lovely document saying it complies. Since the guy never asked he does not know if any of the cables are buried in a wall, they are but only for around 2 meters, but it seems Napit does allow non RCD protected cables buried in a wall with a domestic installation. It was only done a couple of months back. I wanted to fit a RCD FCU but something in the central heating kept tripping it, so had to remove it. Did not trip with type AC RCBO so seems likely down to supply type maybe needs type F as from an inverter?

But it is not what I would do, but if when I found some one else had done something should I action it? And I don't feel the use of RCD's is written in stone, we at work I think do have RCD protection in the accommodation block and EV charging point, but not much else where, in the main we use 55-0-55 and so not so bad, but rules are rules, and not seen a single RCD used with the 55-0-55 supplies. And any supply to the transformer even with an RCD would not help as they are isolation transformers.

As to BS 7671 "the installation is not intended to be under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person" bit likely lets where I work off the hook, but 522 SELECTION AND ERECTION OF WIRING SYSTEMS IN RELATION TO EXTERNAL INFLUENCES does not state the voltage, clearly a SELV can't have RCD protection, but what about reduced low voltage, maybe latter editions do state the voltages? It is clearly not just domestic as it says "areas used by forklift trucks" as an example, so however much I personally feel RCD protection should be fitted, I can't say an electrician who says it is not required is wrong.

 

[Diver Fred]

Problem is that there are too many people claiming “to do electrics “, often handyman who don’t have the knowledge, competence and test kit, nor the appropriate insurances

Then there are the newly “qualified “ sparks

Yes I know... My BiL and I, we are both retired from our 'professional' roles, were in discussion with home owner a few weeks ago, talking about electric's in their home. I made the comment that professionally I'm an Electrical Engineer, BiL is an industrial electrical Technician, she thought either of us could do some electrical work for her but she did ask what the difference is.
Best simple explanation I could was that I am one of the people who (could) set the wiring standards but cannot do the work, BiL is the person who does the work but doesn't set the standards but (could) offer his experience and input. He also pointed out that he didn't do domestic electrical work having not been trained on that role.

I pointed her in the direction of the electrical chap (Technician) who I employ as & when I need electrical work doing.


But then the discussion around the differences in being an 'Engineer' and 'Technician' is something that is never very clear. When I was at secondary school (1960's) the most likely person who should have understood the difference (the Physic's master) never corrected the general understanding at. the time - what people called 'engineers' roles were people working on. the shop floor of engineering factories and people called 'technicians' were people who did less repetitive or possibly development work.
But of course it's even worse in (ex-)Civil Service jobs - Technicians do the work and Engineers (did) manage people.

 

[JohnW2]

The heading is rental with no RCD, and it has been said the new landlord law says it should comply to BS 7671:2018, but it does not say the installation should be treated as new, and as we start to read BS 7671 it clearly states the design date at which it comes into effect, so within BS 7671 it basic redirects one to an older edition.

Eric, although we cannot confidently read the minds of the legislators (as regards their 'intent'), so, as you always say, only a Court could rule on interpretation of the legislation (albeit a Court will probably never be asked to consider this issue), I do strong suspect that you are not interpreting the legislation in the manner what was 'intended'.

I very strongly suspect that when the legislation says that rental properties should be inspected in relation to BS7671:2018, the intent was to refer to what BS7671:2018 requires in relation to 'new' work undertaken in relation to that Standard.

In fact, the bit in the Introduction of all editions of BS7671 that you always cite does not actually say that it something non-compliant with the present edition was 'compliant with the current edition when it was installed' it is then 'OK' - rather, it says that such things are "not necessarily unsafe for continued use...", which seems to give an inspector plenty of scope for having an opinion that they 'might be unsafe'.

In other words, I suspect that you are probably trying to be 'too clever' in the way you interpret the wording of the legislation and that, should they ever be asked to, I also suspect that a Court would rule in terms of what I would regarded as the 'common sense' interpretation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[jurassic sparkk]

Interesting comments, and my thoughts are:

No RCD - border line - but I do tell landlords that as part of their duty of care then they should add RCD protection. Especially if someone is going to be standing on "true earth", which in this case the kitchen is accountable.

16mm tails OK

6mm main earth ok if TNS

no bonding - needs fixing, unless both are plastic or bonded when they enter the block

Bathroom fan - outside scope of BS7671

Kitchen fan - outside scope of BS7671

No smokes - outside scope of BS7671 - but do comment on this when doing EICr's. Needs to be installed.

So for me the flat is "unsatisfactory" needs rectifying before gets put on rent or whatever.

 

[Murdochcat]

^^ re smoke and heat alarms IF they are mains powered they do fall under an EICR

 

[JohnW2]

Problem is that there are too many people claiming “to do electrics “, often handyman who don’t have the knowledge, competence and test kit, nor the appropriate insurances .... Then there are the newly “qualified “ sparks

I totally agree.

I personally think that, within reason, people should be free to do whatever that wish within their own homes (there's already plenty of legislation covering activities which result in danger to life or limb,whether in relation to electrical matters or anything else), but when it comes to people offering to provide paid electrical services I think that, just as in no many other walks of life, they should be required to be registered/'licensed' in some way (with effective 'policing'), and that achieving that status should require 'evidence of competence' that would very probably need to be 'better' than a fair bit of the 'training' and 'qualifications'we hear about today.

Even more so with EICRs (including 'rental property inspections'), particularly since the 'landlord legislation' gave them teeth. As I always say, I think that there certainly should be required registration/licensing of people who were allowed to undertake such inspections and that they should be required to have 'considerable' training, qualification and experience. Again, it would need to be effectively 'policed', and those found to be producing unsatisfactory EICRs should have their registrations/licences revoked.

 

[SUNRAY]

I totally agree.

I personally think that, within reason, people should be free to do whatever that wish within their own homes (there's already plenty of legislation covering activities which result in danger to life or limb,whether in relation to electrical matters or anything else), but when it comes to people offering to provide paid electrical services I think that, just as in no many other walks of life, they should be required to be registered/'licensed' in some way (with effective 'policing'), and that achieving that status should require 'evidence of competence' that would very probably need to be 'better' than a fair bit of the 'training' and 'qualifications'we hear about today.

Even more so with EICRs (including 'rental property inspections'), particularly since the 'landlord legislation' gave them teeth. As I always say, I think that there certainly should be required registration/licensing of people who were allowed to undertake such inspections and that they should be required to have 'considerable' training, qualification and experience. Again, it would need to be effectively 'policed', and those found to be producing unsatisfactory EICRs should have their registrations/licences revoked.

I agree...

BUT...

I'm not qualified, other than doing 16th a few years back, but the people I work for are happy for me to work for them under their control, even to the point they ask me to go out on jobs alone and even do inspestion and testing and sign and they countersign. Apparently all of that is acceptable under their obligations to NAPNIC.

 

[JohnW2]

John I do agree with the rest of your post but, in my experience, I have seen quite a few things that in my opinion anyone presenting as an "electrician" who has appeared on site must surely have noticed things then according to the customer "never mentioned it!" .

I don’t think we are disagreeing. As per the first couple of medical examples I metioned, some things are so ‘obvious' that any remotely competent electrician should ‘notice’ them and, if they raise concerns, then at least ‘mention’ them to the owner of the installation.

In other words "How could he possibly fail to have noticed that?" and " why the hack did he not mention that?" ….

Essentially as above - if the electrician failed to notice something ‘obvious’ that he/she had been staring at, that would be inexcusable.

However, the customer may ‘over-presume' about what the electrician has ‘looked at'/seen - e.g. expecting that, in the course of, say, replacing a broken socket, he/she should also have 'noticed' the absence of main bonding in the installation, the absence of earthling of a metal light switch or whatever.

I suppose a sort-of medical equivalent would be the patient who went to a doctor with a problem with their finger or toe and subsequently complained that the doctor ‘had not noticed' a large lump on their abdomen or breast - or, come to that.' had not noticed' that they had (asymptomatic) heart disease!

I suppose the real message/lesson is the need for very clear communication.

Kind Regards, John