Do I need a new electric CU for (Rental) EICR? (Ed.)

[Murdochcat]

This thread degenerated into pointless circular argument wrangling 8+ pages ago.

Your comment about 'muddying' underlines the fact that, although you frequently talk about "the discussion", your idea of a discussion seems to be for you to just repeatedly assert your own, seemingly unchangeable, views, and not take notice of anything anyone else writes, other than to disagree with it or dismiss it.

I work to consistent standards

Lots of the other comments, including some of yours are based on hearsay, incorrect interpretations, wanting to make money and Mr Google.

 

[Murdochcat]

Why do you believe what Electrical Safety First say?

Because the variety and quantity of interested parties that contribute to that specific document.

I think you can call it consensus. Just look at Page 24

 

[ebee]

Because the variety and quantity of interested parties that contribute to that specific document.

I think you can call it consensus. Just look at Page 24

Was not Electrical Safety First originall an offshoot of NICEIC?

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Was not Electrical Safety First originall an offshoot of NICEIC?

Electrical Safety First and ECA together own Certsure LLP, which trades using the NICEIC and ELECSA certification brands.
So it's all a case of using fancy organisation names to kid people.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't particularly like them either, but these are clearly organisations in a position of high power and influence ....

They are, and that's a big part of the problem. The first issue/problem is that there are several of them. I know that,in general, they only 'give guidance', but the need as I see it is for clearer 'regulation' and, if one wants people working to consistent standards, that really requires that there is only a single body, singing a single tune. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any profession, service or walkk of life which is 'regulated' by multiple bodies

and I wouldn't want to be someone standing in court trying to defend why I had given a satisfactory EICR to something that industry guidance deems unsatisfactory.

That's the problem of their being "of high power and influence", but is also raises the second issue I mentioned, since what is even a court going to do if different bodies produce differing guidance? ... it would then become a ';war' between two camps of expert witnesses!

If you are aware of any organsations of similar or greater stature giving substantially different advice please do tell me about them.

There obviously isn't such an animal, and that's really my point. Were I aware of such, you would sure have heard from me about it by now

I am saying that although they don't state it explicitly they have effectively chosen the 16th as a threshold for how far out of date an installation can be and still be "satisfactory" and that given the lack of an official government position on such that I belive that the 16th is probablly one of the most defensible cutoffs to choose.

OK. That makes a lot more sense than the way I read your previous comment! If, as now seems to be the case, you're merely talking about how far back in history one is 'allowed to go' in regarding as 'satisfactory' something that was compliant with regs back then, but non-conformant with current regs, then I would think that the 16th is probably a reasonable cutoff - but I can't have too much of an opinion about that, since I have very limited knowledge of anything prior to 16th.

The statement at the front of every edition of BS7671 is essentially useless, since it merely passes the buck to thee reader. As written, it could literally be taken to allow one to go back as far as one wanted (to "1st edition" if one wanted ), hence leaving the reader to use judgement/discretion as regards the "does ot necessarily" of ".... does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe..." - i.e. no 'guidance' at all.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

Was not Electrical Safety First originall an offshoot of NICEIC?

Yes and I think it still is.

Point is all the companies contributing to this document bring together a huge amount of competence and relevance - and hence why Joe Public can use it with some confidence.

The problem is the untrained keyboard warriors think they know better

Time to get my coat

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That's the problem of their being "of high power and influence", but is also raises the second issue I mentioned, since what is even a court going to do if different bodies produce differing guidance? ... it would then become a ';war' between two camps of expert witnesses!

..and no court would understand any of the technicalities, they have to rely upon expert witnesses to explain it to them.

 

[JohnW2]

..and no court would understand any of the technicalities, they have to rely upon expert witnesses to explain it to them.

Quite so.

That's why I always smile whenever eric tells us (very frequently!) that "only a Court can decide"!

As you say, the Court would be totally reliant on expert witnesses. However, if, as is likely to be the case, there are two camps of disagreeing expert witnesses), how on earth is a Court (which didn't have the technical competence to decide for themselves in the first place) meant to be able ) to chose between the opposing expert views?

If the Court does not have the ability to decide between differing expert views on the basis of technical knowledge (which they don't have), one hates to think what criteria they would use (maybe only 'subconsciously') to make that 'choice' - 'eloquence', appearance', 'qualifications', experience, age (or far worse) or what ??
??

Despite what eric seems to think, Courts are no 'saviour' in relation to these issues, and may be little better than 'tossing a coin'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Tossing a coin might be less biased too John

 

[JohnW2]

Tossing a coin might be less biased too John

Maybe. Coins certainly don't have 'vested interests' or 'personal agendas', and nor do they fall asleep during 'boring' committee meetings (of enormous committees) which are attempting to create rules, regulations and laws!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

Allowing ALL such documents to be reviewed and where appropriate revised by the Plain English Campaign might be a good start.

Totally fed up with ill thought out directives / laws / regulations.