He wrote
Complete rewire needed, so says the sparky
- Thread starter WellMan
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Does that "all circuits" perhaps include a circuit which "serves a location containing a bath or shower" (and/or a circuit likely to be used for outdoor equipment)? If so, then, per the NICIEC guidelines you kindly quoted, it should be C2, shouldn't it?
Kind Regards, John
Do we go by NIC guidelines?
Not sure I agree. Lower insulation resistance values may simply be indicative of long circuits or many circuits in parallel.
However the minimum insulation resistance quoted in BS 7671 is for the installation, and therefore the effects of resistances in parallel must be considered. The simplest way is to conduct the insulation test on the whole installation or distribution circuit with all devices closed in the relevant distribution board if the installation is too large to conduct the test on in one go.
Sponsored Links
If the electrician is a NICEIC member then he may well do.
And the OP seems keen to invoke those guidelines when it suits him. Talking of which...
WellMan - there is absolutely no point you asking things here, as you are not interested in any answers which do not fit with your preconception that an installation with failing circuits, IR values down in the weeds, no RCD protection at all could not possibly need anything doing other than a band-aid on the circuit which finally threw in the towel, and that any electrician who dares to suggest otherwise is trying to scam you.
Just go away and do what you always planned to do for the wellbeing of your tenant - SFA.
You (and others) may well not. However, the OP chose to quote them, and imply that they should have been applied by his electrician - and, by so doing, appears to have shot himself in the foot (assuming there is a room containing a bath or shower which has at least a light!).
Kind Regards, John
I don't think the light is relevant, is it?
Was the OP not quoting the NIC guidelines because he thought they backed up his thoughts in that they stated that it should only have a code 2 if there is a socket outlet in the bathroom - which presumably he doesn't have in a small London apartment.
Whilst I'm not an NIC registered contractor, I think they talk a lot of sense in their various publications and guidelines.
Remember BS7671 is the MINIMUM standard you MUST work to. Working above and beyond the standard is no bad thing in my opinion.
Remember BS7671 is the MINIMUM standard you MUST work to. Working above and beyond the standard is no bad thing in my opinion.
That may be the case but their publications have no authority.
I'm not saying it is the case here but condemning someone's installation because of working to higher standards is not acceptable.
Damnit
In relation to the C3 coding, I read the "...does not serve a location containing a bath or shower" bit, but didn't notice the mention of 'socket outlet' earlier in the sentence!Kind Regards, John
Indeed. Again, it's not the case here, but if NICIEC's 'higher standard' led to something being coded as 'dangerous' when it was compliant with the current version of BS7671, that would surely be a very strange (and I would say unacceptable) state of affairs?
Kind Regards, John
I think we are talking slightly at crossed purposes here. I would code an eicr in accordance with the current version of BS7671, but I often install above and beyond the requirements.
Having said that it's all down to experience and on site risk assessments. For example as mentioned in this thread, a circuit lacking RCD protection may get a code C3 from me on one job and a code C2 on another job depending on the risks I see when actually on site doing the assessment.
Having said that it's all down to experience and on site risk assessments. For example as mentioned in this thread, a circuit lacking RCD protection may get a code C3 from me on one job and a code C2 on another job depending on the risks I see when actually on site doing the assessment.
Fair enough - that's what I would expect. I was merely agreeing with EFLI that one could not 'condemn' (as he put it) an installation because it did not achieve some standard above and beyond the requirements of BS7671.
Indeed - and I think that's how it has to be. A set of robotic rules cannot possibly cover all possible situations/circumstances, so judgement is required. The problem that introduces is, of course, that two inspectors may not come to the same conclusion (and code) - but that's the real world!
Kind Regards, John
Unless you have all circuits which feed sockets to be used outside, or serve bathrooms, that code must be incorrect. Cooker circuit at all? Even so you need to reference a non-compliance. You've paid for a report and slacking on 5 minutes of writing up is not acceptable.
Put it into context you don't expect an MoT failure with just "suspension worn" written on the failure sheet.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
