Consumer Unit Replacement

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, firstly I was thinking of initial verification, not EICRs.

But the whole EICR thing is based on an assumption that at no point will an installation ever have been created or altered except in ways fully compliant with BS 7671, with all the testing and certification needed for every single action done on it.

 

[JohnW2]

No EICR is ever 100%, if it were to be so, then the costs would be prohibitive and we would just have no EICRs .... The job of an inspector is to identify as close to as 100% of problems for fee that allows the client to have it done ....

That's true up to a point, but in the context of a standard domestic installation, I don't think it would be too onerous or costly to inspect/test 'virtually everything' (excluding only those things which were impractical because of 'access' issues etc.). In particular, in the context of what we have been discussing, I would not think it would be particularly onerous, time-consuming or costly to test every socket in a domestic installation.

As I observed recently, what scousespark wrote about 'selective' EICRs (mainly in relation to commercial/industrial installations) has got to be a gamble. Spontaneous, essentially 'random' faults (e.g. loose/lost connections, damaged cables etc.) do occur in electrical installations, and the fact that some circuits show no changes in comparison with a previous EICR (or initial verification) in no way precludes a 'spontaneous' fault having arisen in one of the other circuits. To decide to not test some circuits because others remain 'satisfactory and unchanged' has therefore got to be a gamble and, despite what he said, no 'risk assessment' can really help that - the best it could do would be to provide a statistical estimate of the probability of missing a potentially dangerous fault on an untested circuit - but one could probably achieve that without any testing at all!

Finally, since an alternative has been suggested, let me clarify that absolutely everything I have written in the past couple of pages relates to EICRs, and that abbreviation exists, often multiple times, in most of my posts. I have never said anything about initial verification - and it's hard to see how/why the latter should ever be less than 'as complete as possible'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Wonder how Gazzer is getting on?

 

[JohnW2]

Wonder how Gazzer is getting on?

Dunno. He disappeared on page 16 after we discussed his friend's suggestion that his 'possibly frayed' stranded (probably/possibly ~4mm²) cables should be replaced by 2.5mm² ones. Maybe he has decided to go with his friend's suggestion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Finally, since an alternative has been suggested, let me clarify that absolutely everything I have written in the past couple of pages relates to EICRs, and that abbreviation exists, often multiple times, in most of my posts. I have never said anything about initial verification - and it's hard to see how/why the latter should ever be less than 'as complete as possible'.

Be that as it may, you had said nothing about EICRs in the first several posts back-and-forth about the difficulties shared cpcs would bring to testing.

 

[scousespark]

My comments were related to the industry practice, where it is accepted to inspect/test a sample of the installation where there are accurate records. This is not a practice which would apply to domestic and I would think there would be a bit of an outcry if we were seeing mass electrical casualties in commercial/industrial installations caused by sampling.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would be a bit like a garage only checking the brakes on a sample of cars brought in for MOTs....

 

[JohnW2]

My comments were related to the industry practice, where it is accepted to inspect/test a sample of the installation where there are accurate records. This is not a practice which would apply to domestic ...

You said that you comments related to commercial/industrial installations (and rarely domestic ones), and I don't doubt what you are telling us. However, I remain surprised, particularly since there are more regulations and considerations than just "Part P" for most of the non-domestic installations.

As I have said, it has simply got to be a gamble. No matter how accurate the records, and how little the change in some circuits since the last testing, testing only a sample of circuits will inevitably lead to a risk of spontaneous circuit-related faults not being detected in non-sampled circuits. Probably a very small risk, but much of what we do, and much of the testing we do, exists to avoid or detect very low-risk situations

.... and I would think there would be a bit of an outcry if we were seeing mass electrical casualties in commercial/industrial installations caused by sampling.

That proves very little. As above, much of what we do relates to the avoidance of very small risks. There would not be "mass electrical casualties" or anything like it (maybe hardly a noticeable increase in such casualties at all) if we did no testing at all - but, if we are going to test at all, I don't see that as a reason for doing less than 'as complete as possible' testing.

Other than in relation to matters of cost and convenience, what is the reasoning behind the view that it is OK to test only a sample of circuits in a commercial/industrial installation, but not in a domestic one?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Your last question reminds me of "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

 

[scousespark]

It would be a bit like a garage only checking the brakes on a sample of cars brought in for MOTs....

Hi again. There are frequent post which imply that an IECR is equivalent to and MOT, but there is little comparison.
The items checked in an MOT are perishable through wear and tear so it is not unusual for a vehicle to fail the MOT test.
An electrical circuit does not contain items which would normally degrade through wear and tear.

 

[JohnW2]

Hi again. There are frequent post which imply that an IECR is equivalent to and MOT, but there is little comparison. The items checked in an MOT are perishable through wear and tear so it is not unusual for a vehicle to fail the MOT test. An electrical circuit does not contain items which would normally degrade through wear and tear.

Good to see you.

I suppose that depends upon how widely one defines "wear and tear" ....

... electrical connections, particularly screwed ones, can (and do) 'become loose', RCDs can (and do) 'deteriorate' to the extent of not working satisfactorily., cable (and accessories) can (and do) suffer mechanical damage etc. etc. I would personally think it reasonable to regard those "deteriorations over time" as being comparable with any other sort of 'wear and tear', wouldn't you?

Are you suggesting that the only purpose of an EICR is to identify problems of design and/or construction which have been there since their installation?

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

You said that you comments related to commercial/industrial installations (and rarely domestic ones), and I don't doubt what you are telling us. However, I remain surprised, particularly since there are more regulations and considerations than just "Part P" for most of the non-domestic installations.

I'd like to point out that the Part-P does not replace the regs.

As I have said, it has simply got to be a gamble. No matter how accurate the records, and how little the change in some circuits since the last testing, testing only a sample of circuits will inevitably lead to a risk of spontaneous circuit-related faults not being detected in non-sampled circuits. Probably a very small risk, but much of what we do, and much of the testing we do, exists to avoid or detect very low-risk situations
That proves very little. As above, much of what we do relates to the avoidance of very small risks. There would not be "mass electrical casualties" or anything like it (maybe hardly a noticeable increase in such casualties at all) if we did no testing at all - but, if we are going to test at all, I don't see that as a reason for doing less than 'as complete as possible' testing.

In the main, there are 3 reasons an inspection fails.
1 Poorly carried out/tested work is done to a circuit.
2 The test paramaters have changed, so a previously acceptable reading is no longer acceptable.
3 A circuit is damaged.

In the domestic field, inspections are irregular and there tends to be little evidence of work carried out. In commercial/industrial there are frequent inspections and work is recorded (for insurance purposes). There is an element of risk, but this approach is not a cowboy's charter.

Other than in relation to matters of cost and convenience, what is the reasoning behind the view that it is OK to test only a sample of circuits in a commercial/industrial installation, but not in a domestic one?

Kind Regards, John

The rationale is that an electrician can design/install/test/commisson a domestic job and there is nothing preventing the home-owner making any changes from day 1. In a commercial job, there would normally be records of any changes.

 

[JohnW2]

I'd like to point out that the Part-P does not replace the regs.

Of course, and that was my point - that although Part P does not apply to non-domestic situations, BS7671 and many other laws/regulations do - which is why I was surprised than non-exhaustive inspections/testing were acceptable in such environments.

In the main, there are 3 reasons an inspection fails.
1 Poorly carried out/tested work is done to a circuit.
2 The test paramaters have changed, so a previously acceptable reading is no longer acceptable.
3 A circuit is damaged.

Indeed - and although you seem to believe that (1) id the most common cause of EICR findings, (3) remains a possibility, no less in non-domestic installations than domestic ones - so I'm surprised that it is not considered necessary to look for such problems, on all circuits, during an EICR. As I have just written, 'deteriorations over time' (which are not necessarily apparent to the user) do happen in electrical installations, whether one calls that 'wear and tear' or not.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

Good to see you.

I suppose that depends upon how widely one defines "wear and tear" ....

... electrical connections, particularly screwed ones, can (and do) 'become loose', RCDs can (and do) 'deteriorate' to the extent of not working satisfactorily., cable (and accessories) can (and do) suffer mechanical damage etc. etc. I would personally think it reasonable to regard those "deteriorations over time" as being comparable with any other sort of 'wear and tear', wouldn't you?

Under normal operation: brakes, tyres, winscreen wipers will wear out. Weather conditions may lead to rust. The conditions of our roads may damage supension parts. Domestic inspections mainly take place when a house is bought/sold, so there are normally many years beween inspections. That is not the case in commercial/industrial.

Are you suggesting that the only purpose of an EICR is to identify problems of design and/or construction which have been there since their installation?

Kind Regards, John

Where have I suggested that. The EICR gives a point-in-time status of the installation.

 

[JohnW2]

Under normal operation: brakes, tyres, winscreen wipers will wear out. Weather conditions may lead to rust. The conditions of our roads may damage supension parts. Domestic inspections mainly take place when a house is bought/sold, so there are normally many years beween inspections. That is not the case in commercial/industrial.

All totally agreed. However, as I've said in my last two posts, deterioration over time and damage can occur in any circuit in any installation. Such problems may well not be apparent to users and therefore could only be detected by inspection/testing of all circuits,

Where have I suggested that. The EICR gives a point-in-time status of the installation.

That would presumably be "..a point-in-time status of part of the installation" ?

Anyway, in answer to your question .... what you have not only suggested but actually stated is that there are 3 main reasons for inspection failures, and I totally agree with what you have said. However, as I've said, the third reason you give ("a circuit is damaged") could, as above, exist in relation to any circuit without the user's knowledge (and would thus not be detected unless that circuit were inspected/tested).

Hence, if not all circuits are subjected to that I&T, then for at least some circuits, the only problems an EICR would detect would be those which had been present from inception (or due to changing views as to what test results were acceptable, although that would probably be relatively rare).

Kind Regards, John