1. Visiting from the US? Why not try DIYnot.US instead? Click here to continue to DIYnot.US.
    Dismiss Notice

EICR for home owner

Discussion in 'Electrics UK' started by Giles Mann, 26 Jan 2021.

  1. Risteard

    Risteard

    Joined:
    18 Jun 2010
    Messages:
    2,142
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    Derry, Ireland
    Country:
    Ireland
    I'm not sure what your point is. It wasn't me who made the erroneous claim that Regulations cannot be retrospective. BS7671 doesn't even include the word "retrospective" in the document. It simply states that works to previous Editions may not necessarily be unsafe, ergo they also may be unsafe or require upgrading.
     
  2. Sponsored Links
  3. Captain Nemesis

    Captain Nemesis

    Joined:
    8 Jul 2020
    Messages:
    280
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Surely the world is full of examples of things which were considered OK and now are not? Lead in petrol was thought safe, cigarettes were thought safe, raw sewage dumped into rivers was though safe, CFCs in aerosols was thought safe. Extreme examples but does it never happen with electrical regulations where they say "this is no good, its not safe enough" and they change them?
     
  4. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    46,311
    Thanks Received:
    2,987
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Of course, and that's a point I very often make myself whenever people say (as some do repeatedly) that something which would have been compliant with any previous edition of BS7671 should not be considered 'potentially dangerous' today.

    However, I think you may be missing my point.

    For a start, different from all the examples you cite, knowledge about electricity (and dangers associated with electricity) has not, in general, changed for very many decades (although our ability to address some of those dangers has changed because of technological advances - e.g. RCDs). What has changed over time is 'our' view of what degree of risk is 'acceptable'.

    However, just as something does not suddenly become dangerous because a new book of regulations is published, nor, in reality, does the view about 'acceptable levels of risk' change 'overnight', either.

    The thing to realise is that (with just one very specific exception mentioned in guidance to the regulations) the coding of things on EICRs is not (contrary to what many seem to think) about conformity (or non-conformity) with any regulations but, rather, is down to the inspector's judgement as to whether any such non-conformities do, or do not, represent "danger" (C1) or "potential danger" (C2). That is obviously an individual judgement, based on a number of factors. As I implied, if something would have been conformant with regs (hence considered to be "acceptably safe") 'last week', but not today (because a new set of regs has been published), that is one of the factors which an inspector may well take into consideration.

    Kind Regards, John
     
  5. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    46,311
    Thanks Received:
    2,987
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    That's true - but it was you who appeared to be citing two examples of things that you consider to be 'retrospective'.
    Again true. In fact, the word "retrospective" is rather misleading, conformity with the requirements of even the current edition of BS7671 is not 'mandatory'.

    Rather than using that word, people should probably simply say that nothing in BS7671 requires (even in a non-mandatory fashion), explicitly or implicitly, that any existing installation be brought into conformity with the current edition. Indeed, on the contrary, as the first sentence of what I quoted says:
    In other words, by its own admission, the current edition of BS7671 does not even apply to 'existing installations' (only to 'additions and alterations' thereto, as well as to new installations).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. EFLImpudence

    EFLImpudence

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    35,483
    Thanks Received:
    3,971
    Location:
    Retired to:
    Country:
    Portugal
    Oooh. That's interesting.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    46,311
    Thanks Received:
    2,987
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Indeed it is!

    I have to confess that, despite all the years during which I must have been reading that sentence, it has never previously occurred to me how very relevant it might be to all the 'non retrospective' discussions!

    Kind Regards, John
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Sponsored Links
Loading...

Share This Page