EICR situation

Hi John, That maybe the case, and yes, that would mean that there would probably be a lot more 'unsatisfactory' reports the day after a regs change. Harsh to some people but i guess thats just the way it is.
Not just harsh, but I would suggest also unrealistic/unacceptable.
that maybe your take, but you maybe forced to accept the reality if you were ever to be in that situation.
Those people needing to have a 'satisfactory' EICR would be forced to have (perhaps major) work undertaken everytime the whim of the IET etc. caused them to 'update' the regs.
yep, that sounds about right, bummer, isn't it? But equally, the upgrade work involved may only be minor. After all, it isn't difficult or expensive to install a small enclosure with RCD for sockets somewhere at or near to the origin of the circuit, is it?
Many pre-existing things (e.g. cars) continue to be regarded as acceptable even if they would not be compliant with current-day regulations for new products.
but there are also cars which would be deemed unacceptable due to a change in testing aswell. (think back to when emmssions tests came in, a lot of cars got scrapped as a result of failure to comply, bummer again!
Although, having said that, as i'm sure you know, if there were only code 3 on the report then the overall report would be satisfactory. (as an example, rcd protection for concealed cables, only a code3, so nothing to be concerned about).
Indeed, but I thought that's what this discussion is about.
yes, but those code 3s may have come about as a result of a change in reporting but are inconsequential. Just illustrating that you don't have to paint everything black due to changes, its not always that bad and changes made are usually to try to promote safety and thats not a bad thing IMHO.
As you say, a Code 3 is really a different kettle of fish - it is essentially just 'advisory' (indicating non-compliance with current regulations) and does not result in an 'Unsatisfactory' result. That's surely why there is this discussion about people who would give a Code 2 to things which (perhaps by applying 'common sense') others would classify as Code 3?
Re: the common sense approach. .... If it were down to the likes of you or I, I'm sure we would apply common sense when devising a protocol for reporting. However, we were not involved and common sense may be due to arrive on a later bus, but i won't be holding my breath :)
As above, isn't the decision of an electrician as to whether to give a Code 2 or Code 3 something which can (and hopefully often is) based on the application of a degree of common sense?

Kind Regards, John

Yes, but i know you are very well aware of how some people like to apply a blend of common sense and guidance/regulation, this can produce varying results can't it?
 
Sponsored Links
Those people needing to have a 'satisfactory' EICR would be forced to have (perhaps major) work undertaken everytime the whim of the IET etc. caused them to 'update' the regs.
yep, that sounds about right, bummer, isn't it? But equally, the upgrade work involved may only be minor.
Yes, it may, but not necessarily. Maybe I'me wrong, but I just don't think that a requirement to upgrade every electrical installation the moment the regs changed would be regarded as 'acceptable'.
....but there are also cars which would be deemed unacceptable due to a change in testing aswell. (think back to when emmssions tests came in, a lot of cars got scrapped as a result of failure to comply, bummer again!
Yes, but that's almost the exception that proves the rule. Most changes relating to cars are not retro-active in that fashion - for example, I think that there are still cars on the road which are not required to have seat belts.
Yes, but i know you are very well aware of how some people like to apply a blend of common sense and guidance/regulation, this can produce varying results can't it?
Of course, and that's why we have discussions like this.

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
Those people needing to have a 'satisfactory' EICR would be forced to have (perhaps major) work undertaken everytime the whim of the IET etc. caused them to 'update' the regs.
yep, that sounds about right, bummer, isn't it? But equally, the upgrade work involved may only be minor.
Yes, it may, but not necessarily. Maybe I'me wrong, but I just don't think that a requirement to upgrade every electrical installation the moment the regs changed would be regarded as 'acceptable'.
It depends on what your focus is. If you are a landlord, i think you would have a duty of care to your tenants to ensure that all reasonable practicable steps had been taken to ensure their safety, but that change would not be immediatley required. It may only become relevant on the next inspection, which could be as long as 5 years away. Anyway, splashing out on (guessing) a £100 RCD* addition to socket circuit at the origin isn't a massive outlay when you defray that cost over the tenancy period
If it is for insurance purposes you may or may not be out on a limb if you don't carry out remedial work.

Can you put forward an example where the houseowner would be subject to major major works and costs based on the last set of changes to the regs? Other than 'new cu' which may not be necessary as i suggested earlier, i'm struggling to think of a real world example....
....but there are also cars which would be deemed unacceptable due to a change in testing aswell. (think back to when emmssions tests came in, a lot of cars got scrapped as a result of failure to comply, bummer again!
Yes, but that's almost the exception that proves the rule. Most changes relating to cars are not retro-active in that fashion - for example, I think that there are still cars on the road which are not required to have seat belts.
lol, it was your analogy, not mine. There are some vehicles exempt from seat belt laws, but not many. ?Maybe vehicles that qualify as vintage and never had them fitted originally, maybe taxi drivers are exempt from wearing them whilst carrying passengers?
But what about bullbars that were a highly fashionable attachment to the front of chelsea tractors some 10-20 years ago, they disappeared due to testing changes, so theres another exception to your rule.
Yes, but i know you are very well aware of how some people like to apply a blend of common sense and guidance/regulation, this can produce varying results can't it?
Of course, and that's why we have discussions like this.

Kind Regards, John[/quote]

indeed it is.

*small 'garage or shower' enclosure with RCD, fed from original socket fuseway with a bit of oversized cable. £40 in materials, 2 hour job??
 
It depends on what your focus is. If you are a landlord, i think you would have a duty of care to your tenants to ensure that all reasonable practicable steps had been taken to ensure their safety, but that change would not be immediatley required. It may only become relevant on the next inspection, which could be as long as 5 years away.
Wouldn't that be even sillier? If one were taking the view that, because of new requirements of the regs, changes/'improvements' needed to be made 'in the name of safety', what would be the justification for allowing those changes to be delayed by, say, 5 years?
Can you put forward an example where the houseowner would be subject to major works and costs based on the last set of changes to the regs? Other than 'new cu' which may not be necessary as i suggested earlier, i'm struggling to think of a real world example....
If by 'last set of changes to the regs' you are referring to the 2011 Amendment of BS7671:2008 ("17th ed."), then I might also struggle. However, the introduction of the 17th ed itself in 2008 would have caused a high proportion of installations to need significant works - in most cases including a CU change (or serious butchery to an existing CU,or installation of an extra CU). Thinking more widely about things which are no longer compliant, what about all the inaccessible junction boxes, inadequately protected underground cables, lighting circuits without CPCs, etc. etc.?

Kind Regards, John
 
It depends on what your focus is. If you are a landlord, i think you would have a duty of care to your tenants to ensure that all reasonable practicable steps had been taken to ensure their safety, but that change would not be immediatley required. It may only become relevant on the next inspection, which could be as long as 5 years away.
Wouldn't that be even sillier? If one were taking the view that, because of new requirements of the regs, changes/'improvements' needed to be made 'in the name of safety', what would be the justification for allowing those changes to be delayed by, say, 5 years?
Silly? I wouldn't have described it that way myself, but that may be the case. Nevertheless, it could be a reality, couldn't it?
Similar to having your car MOTd on Jan 1st and some change was made to the MOT test on Jan 2nd that would mean your car under the new regime would be considered a fail. That doesn't mean your car is unsafe to use on the road, so no immediate need to have work done, but come december 31st, you would be forced into having the work done by then should you wish to continue using the car legally. It generally takes time for these things to roll out and have them implemented.
Can you put forward an example where the houseowner would be subject to major works and costs based on the last set of changes to the regs? Other than 'new cu' which may not be necessary as i suggested earlier, i'm struggling to think of a real world example....
If by 'last set of changes to the regs' you are referring to the 2011 Amendment of BS7671:2008 ("17th ed.")
yep, thats them, its just that 'last set' was easier to type. :)
, then I might also struggle.
sorry John, its just t hat you suggested that remedial works may be a major job, and i'm struggling to see why you would have said that without a practical example at hand
However, the introduction of the 17th ed itself in 2008 would have caused a high proportion of installations to need significant works - in most cases including a CU change (or serious butchery to an existing CU,or installation of an extra CU).
True, but was that such a bad thing? I dare say it provoked a lot of people to improving the overall safety of their installation
Thinking more widely about things which are no longer compliant, what about all the inaccessible junction boxes, inadequately protected underground cables, lighting circuits without CPCs, etc. etc.?
what about them? Were inaccessible junction boxes ever compliant? Are there any class1 fittings attached to said lighting circuit?.. etc..
Kind Regards, John
 
It depends on what your focus is. If you are a landlord, i think you would have a duty of care to your tenants to ensure that all reasonable practicable steps had been taken to ensure their safety, but that change would not be immediatley required. It may only become relevant on the next inspection, which could be as long as 5 years away.
Wouldn't that be even sillier? If one were taking the view that, because of new requirements of the regs, changes/'improvements' needed to be made 'in the name of safety', what would be the justification for allowing those changes to be delayed by, say, 5 years?
Silly? I wouldn't have described it that way myself, but that may be the case. Nevertheless, it could be a reality, couldn't it?
Similar to having your car MOTd on Jan 1st and some change was made to the MOT test on Jan 2nd that would mean your car under the new regime would be considered a fail. That doesn't mean your car is unsafe to use on the road, so no immediate need to have work done, but come december 31st, you would be forced into having the work done by then should you wish to continue using the car legally.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that (per your analogy), if changes to the MOT test on 31st December had the effect that your car technically 'failed' a test on Jan 1st, you would be allowed to delay the rectifications until the following Dec 31st.

However, even now that I understood what you meant, there still is an element of what I would call 'silliness' in it - since there is a substantial random element in the equation. Work required to bring an installation up to current standards 'in the name of safety' might have to be undertaken almost immediately, or not for 5 or more years, depending on the purely chance matter of when the regulations changed in relation to an installation's 'EICR cycle'.

I really don't believe that I am ever going to see regulations automatically requiring that electrical installations be brought up to current regulations as they evolve. However, if, despite my belief, such a thing ever did happen, I think the system would be well-advised to point its fingers first at the DNOs!
...the introduction of the 17th ed itself in 2008 would have caused a high proportion of installations to need significant works - in most cases including a CU change (or serious butchery to an existing CU,or installation of an extra CU).
True, but was that such a bad thing? I dare say it provoked a lot of people to improving the overall safety of their installation
In many cases, I don't think it will have had an appreciable effect on the safety of the installation. By 2008, many people had an installation in which all circuits were protected by a single RCD (I certainly did from the mid-80s, maybe earlier). For many people, therefore, 'upgrading to comply with current regs' required them to move to a 2-RCD CU. That will have have provided a slight 'convenience' benefit ('slight', because how often do RCDs operate? - in my house, I can recall only two or three times in the last couple of decades, all in daylight) but I suspect that the 'improvement in overall safety' (people not falling down the stairs in the dark,etc.) would probably be almost immeasurable.
what about them? Were inaccessible junction boxes ever compliant?
They have been so ubiquitous that I assumed they probably had been. If not, there were not many compliant installations in the past!
Are there any class1 fittings attached to said lighting circuit?.. etc..
Whilst that is an important question in relation to safety in the presence of a lighting circuit without a CPC (i.e. common sense), I don't think that a lighting circuit without a CPC can be compliant with current regulations,no matter what fittings there are - since there is a requirement for a CPC to be run to every 'point and accessory' in a circuit. Hence, 2-core lighting circuits are non-compliant with current regs, although (by applying common sense) you can advise people how to use them safely if they have them.

Kind Regards, John
 
Hi Guys, Thanks for the input.

I always code non rcd protected sockets likely to suppy equipment outdoors as code 2. The customer has agreed to have 2 rcd socket outlets to the front and rear at the most usable and convenients points and i regard this as a satisfactory installation now. I have coded the presence of no rcd protection on buried cables as C3 and that is reasonable to me.

As a side note, the regs are retrospective in regards to this scenario as we code it 2. When this installation was erected, RCD's were not invented or at least not required on any socket circuit or outlet.

Regards.
 
I always code non rcd protected sockets likely to suppy equipment outdoors as code 2.
Fair enough, that's your decision/judgement - but it obviously may require a subjective judgement (or guess). If there are sockets close to front or back doors, then it's not hard to make a reasonable judgement, but in other cases it may be next-to-impossible. In many houses I know, any (of the many) sockets in the kitchen would probably be equally likely to be used to power equipment used in the rear garden (just depending on which happened to be 'free' at the time).
As a side note, the regs are retrospective in regards to this scenario as we code it 2. When this installation was erected, RCD's were not invented or at least not required on any socket circuit or outlet.
That's an interesting point. However, as I understand it, current regs effectively require virtually all sockets to be RCD protected (even if they are not judged likely to be used to supply outdoor equipment) - so do you give them a Code 2 as well? - or are you being 'selective' on the basis of your judgement/common sense (an approach I would not criticise).

Kind Regards, John
 
When this installation was erected, RCD's were not invented

I believe the oldest RCD I have seen dates back to 974.

Wylex brand. That was actually an RCD incomer board.

Not sure when they were introduced in the UK.
 
I believe the oldest RCD I have seen dates back to 1974. Wylex brand. That was actually an RCD incomer board.
Does anyone know when the regs first recognised the existance of RCDs - and when the regs first 'required' RCDs to be used in some situations?

Kind Regards, John
 
Current-operated ELCB's are in the early 14th Ed. regs.

But whether they were available for domestic, I'm not sure.

When I find my copy, I'll post back.... ;)
 
Current-operated ELCB's are in the early 14th Ed. regs.
That's quite early. I'm not sure exactly which 'edition' you mean, but the original 14th ed was issued in 1966, and the last Amendment in 1976.
When I find my copy, I'll post back.... ;)
Thanks. ... and, as I said, if anyone knws, I'd be interested to know when they were first 'required' by the regs for some situations.

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top