EICR and spurs

[JohnW2]

Because they list what does produce a risk of shock, and RCD is not in the list.

Are you talking about 'the list' which you posted? If so, as I said, that includes ...

there are any potential electric shock risks and fire hazards

... which would appear to encompass anything which the reader consdiered to be a "potential electric shock risk", wouldn't it?

The use of RCD protection has never protected from electric shock, it has only reduced the time you can get the shock down to 40 mS.

If we are being pedantic about wording, and if we're talking about that 'list' you posted, then "potential electrical shock risks" does not necessarily mean 'the risk of getting an electrical shock' - it could equally mean 'the risks resulting from getting an electric shock' (like serious injury or death).

Well OK it may result in it tripping before you touch in some cases.

Indeed - and some people (I thought including you) often made the point that that is far more common, hence far more likely to prevent shocks and their consequences, than tripping as a result of someone getting a shock - in which case it presumably can be said that RCDs do "reduce the risk of anyone receiving an electric shock", can't it?

The does seem at a glance to direct to all what BS 7671:2018 says, but BS 7671:2018 says in the regulations what date it covers the designs from, note designed not installed. So to comply if designed before the date listed then it is covered by and earlier edition, so this means the edition used as defined by latest edition is the edition in force when designed. So it is not retrospective.

That's the issue which we have been debating extensively. Despite what you go on to say, even a Court cannot know what was 'intended'. What (if it ever came to Court) a Court could, and probably would, do would be to decide how a "reasonable man" would interpret the wording of the legislation, as it has been written. It is not the place of a court to decide that what the legislation "actually says" differs from what the legislators 'intended to say' - only the legislators can do anything about that.

So, as for how a 'reasonable man' would interpret what the legislation actually says, I don't really think there is any scope for argument. Despite what you say, the legislation says nothing about "the latest edition" of BS7671 but, rather, says...

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018

That is extremely explicit, and I cannot see how it could be said that "BS7671: 2018" can mean anything other than BS 7671:2018!

However, although that's what the legislation actually says, as we know the corresponding Guidance document makes it clear that there is no requirement for there to be no C3s on an EICR - so, as we have discussed, if the person undertaking the EICR shares your view that anything that was compliant with the prevailing regs when it was installed, that one should never give a C2, then that solves the problem. However, as I keep saying, that leaves an awful lot of this at the mercy of the judgement/discretion of the individual undertaking the EICR, which I don't personally think is very satisfactory.

It is true that BS 7671: 2018 says that, if things non-compliant with it were compliant with the prevailing edition when installed, this "does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use ..." but that clearly implies the possibility that they also may be 'unsafe for continued use'- which again, leaves us at the mercy of the (very difficult, possibly often almost impossible) judgement/discretion of the individual undertaking the EICR.

Kind Regards, John