Consumer unit bathroom, nothing on home report?

[JohnW2]

If it's dangerous, yes, but not simply for not having been installed during a 17th era. You can't fail an install unless it's dangerous.

As with RF, I'm assuming that when you say 'fail', you mean a C1 or C2 code assigned to a failure to comply with the current regs (i.e. 17th Ed, Amd 1 at present) - i.e. failures to comply with current regs which, in the opinion of the inspector, represent a frank or potential danger - and that is the case regardless of whether or not the present situation would, or would not, ever have been compliant with an earlier edition of the regs.

... and can I make a plea for some sensible and intelligent restraint in quoting posts in this thread? Thanks.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

If it's none compliant with the current edition of BS7671, then it gets noted as a none compliance.

You use the coding system to say how dangerous it is, and subsequently, whether the installation is in a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory condition.

Exactly, no more, no less.

So there are no "fails" as such then are there? Just varying degrees of non-compliance.

SF, I still find the odd install with wooden consumer units with fusing on the neutrals.

I find installations using a public water supply pipe for an earth connection and VO ELCB's.

I find supplementary bonding on everything that did not move and supplementary in the kitchen.

All these features complied with regulations , the first two prior to the 12th Ed., I believe.

By the time 14th was issued, the third had been prohibited.

By 1985, approximately mid-way through the 15th, use of the fourth had been deleted from the book.

Come the 16th, the rampant supplementary had been pared right back.

In the 1st Ed., it was within regulation to fit uninsulated conductors over houses, as long as they were at least 7ft clear.

How would you code that?

 

[Spark123]

Not going as far as a full EICR, I'd have thought that any electrician who is doing some sort of report will note non-compliances with the current edition of the regs, just to cover their own backsides. Even as far as to say it does not comply to the current edition of the regs but is not considered unsafe. For something like what the OP describes / photographs I'd expect to see at least some notes along those lines, not a statement along the lines of just saying it is fine.
It bears the question of who did the home report and what qualifications do they have? What do they use as a benchmark?

 

[JohnW2]

It bears the question of who did the home report and what qualifications do they have? What do they use as a benchmark?

Yes, I find that bit very odd. In my experience, house surveys at any level (from 'house buyer's reports' all the way up to full surveys) fall over backwards in not saying anything significant about electrical installations (certainly not "it's fine") beyond commenting on the apparent age and (usually) advising an 'inspection by a qualified electrician' - basic CYA stuff!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Yes, I find that bit very odd. In my experience, house surveys at any level (from 'house buyer's reports' all the way up to full surveys) fall over backwards in not saying anything significant about electrical installations (certainly not "it's fine") beyond commenting on the apparent age and (usually) advising an 'inspection by a qualified electrician' - basic CYA stuff!

I'd assumed they just has a boilerplate paragraph recommending the electrics be inspected. As you say, completely useless, but absolves them of any liability if you don't have an inspection and something turns out to be wrong.

But in this case, I'd have thought anyone competent to be doing any sort of house survey would have enough knowledge to see that and think "this doesn't look right"

 

[JohnW2]

I'd assumed they just has a boilerplate paragraph recommending the electrics be inspected. As you say, completely useless, but absolves them of any liability if you don't have an inspection and something turns out to be wrong.

Quite - and that's been the way with every survey I've ever seen. 'CYA and avoid liability' is the name of their game.

But in this case, I'd have thought anyone competent to be doing any sort of house survey would have enough knowledge to see that and think "this doesn't look right"

Perhaps - but we're back to the same 'CYA and avoid liability' aren't we? Even if the surveyor 'thought it didn't look right', unless (s)he was certain, to make such a 'negative' statement could be equally 'dangerous' - the 'boilerplate', without any comment about 'thinking that things didn't look right' would be the usual way they'd go.

I wonder what the survey/report actually said - we've only had a pretty vague reference to it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not being facetious -

Is there any way that it could be the bath which is not allowed?

 

[JohnW2]

Not being facetious - Is there any way that it could be the bath which is not allowed?

I'm actually a bit confused about what has happened - seemingly more than just removing a wall, since the bath couldn't have been in its present position when the wall was there (if all the electrical stuff was on the other side of the wall). Perhaps the most interesting question is whether any controls/approvals were required or obtained when the wall was removed - since, if there were, it seems hard to believe that the issue we're discussing would not have arisen.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Wall removal aside -

I'm assuming (yep) that NO electrician would install a CU in that position above a bath so the bath must have been installed afterwards.

It would seem totally unreasonable for a plumber to fit a bath resulting in a mandatory need to have the CU moved.
Therefore it must be the bath which is in contravention of regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

Wall removal aside - I'm assuming (yep) that NO electrician would install a CU in that position above a bath so the bath must have been installed afterwards. It would seem totally unreasonable for a plumber to fit a bath resulting in a mandatory need to have the CU moved. Therefore it must be the bath which is in contravention of regulations.

Yes, I realised what you were getting at, but hence my comments - since I don't think one can necessarily ignore the wall removal.

With the place as built, the bath (a bath) and electrical stuff were on opposite sides of a wall, in different 'rooms', hence both were presumably totally acceoptable and compliant with eveything. If they had simply knocked down the wall, then that will have brought them (electrics and bath) into the same room, very probably with all that 'electrical switchgear' within zone 2 (after all, the bathroom was being enlarged, so it was probably very small). So, in that situation, neither plumbers nor electricians had done anything wrong, but the knocking down of the wall probably had.

However, as things are, you are very probably right, because it looks as if a different/bigger/differently-located bath has probably been installed since the wall was removed. Having said that, I'm not familiar with regulations concerning where a bath may be installed - are you? Whatever, I think the situation with an unchanged bath, but a knocked down wall, would probably be more 'interesting'!

Kind Regards, John