New Rules for Metal Boxes in rental properties

[JohnW2]

It seems there is now a guidance, this document seems to list the get out clauses, and it seems the original idea is being watered down.

I wouldn't say quite that. As I wrote yesterday, I think that the Guidance document clarifies what the legislation was meant to say (and what many of us suspected it was intended to say), but didn't (at least, not remotely 'clearly').

I would still say if the property complied with any version of BS 7671 then no C2 codes should be issued.

'Within reason', but there would obviously be things which probably would deserve at least a C2 if we looked back too far into history. EFLI has mentioned one example (of 'disputed areas') from the Guidelines, in which some people might feel that a C2 was appropriate for something which was 'compliant when installed' - that of a socket 'likely to be used for outdoor equipment' (e.g. in a garage or other outhouse, or close to a rear door) which does not have RCD protection.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

Note that he said "any version of BS7671", *NOT* "any version of the IEE wiring regs".

 

[JohnW2]

Note that he said "any version of BS7671", *NOT* "any version of the IEE wiring regs".

He did, but I think that's really splitting hairs - and, in any event doesn't really alter what I said.....

.... the first version of BS7671 was BS7671:1992, which was a re-branding of the 16th ed of the Wiring Regs which had been published the previous year (1991), and I think that may, in some cases, be 'back too far in history' - i.e. I don't think it is necessarilyy reasonable to say that nothing deserves more than a C3 if it were installed under, and was then compliant with, regulations published 28-29 years ago. In many/most cases, such would quite probably be reasonable, but there are probably some cases in which it would probably be less reasonable. I don't have any access to 16th ed., so can't really look for examples.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I remember the 16th Edition coming out, the first edition of BS 7671, until that point no one took exams to show they could read, and few really worried what the regulations said, many had not even seen a copy, it was very loosely followed.

At the birth of BS 7671 we got electricians walking around saying the 16th Edition says this, the 16th Edition says that, and it seemed an awaking when electricians started to follow the rules, I know I had a few working with me on the building of Sizewell 'B' they seemed to know all the rule book, did not know how to wire a star/delta starter, but knew all the rule book, even the electricians mate had take the 16th Edition exam.

Before 1992 there had been a major change in 1966 when we started to earth lights, and seem to remember in the 70's we went mad on earthing, even metal window frames from what I remember, and the book was a combination of the guide and regulations, with many requirements since dropped, like the distance between socket and sink.

Many of the rules in spite of being dropped were still followed, and it was with the 16th we realised we had been doing things no longer required.

But my earliest copy of BS7671 was 2001, we were told it was really the 17th edition at the time, with many changes, I have not got the 1992 version, it has been long thrown out, so we all realise "Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Fire Risks Arising from Electric Lighting'. Issued in 1882." is too far out of date to really use, so taking 1992 as the first edition of BS7671 that seems to be a good point to say since then we have had reasonable safe installations, well past point when knife switches, ELCB-v, and lights with no earth wires, we did not have a requirement for 30 mA RCD protection, but that is about the only major change to the electrical system. We have had some fire regulations change the requirements, which will change what we do with a new circuit, but I am unaware of any requirement to change any fixed installation in the home which complied in 1992.

But we as electricians are looking as BS7671 which has a date published at which it comes into force for any new design, not some thing designed in 2017 can still be fitted today under the BS7671:2008 rules, it is design date that matters not the date completed.

So I would say as a rule of thumb, if it complies with any edition of BS 7671 then it should have not C2 codes. Yes I think we do need RCD protection, however in the main the RCD protects by tripping out before anyone touches a supply, normally water is the cause, so in real terms the 100 mA RCD likely protects nearly as well as the 30 mA there will be very few times when some one taking normal precautions will get a shock with a 100 mA which they would not have got with a 30 mA, and I know when you hit a cable out of safe routes with a hacksaw blade even with a 30 mA RCD it can knock you to the floor, I did it. There is no 30 mA limit for first 40 mS and after 40 mS I had let go.

So a RCD what ever size does not stop you getting a shock. So it does not remove danger, it only limits how long you can get the shock for, so any live parts exposed still present a potential danger, only way it removes the potential danger is when it trips before anyone touches live parts. So although I would fit RCD protection to reduce danger, it does not really reduce the potential danger, the RCD gives additional protection, so not relied on to reduce the potential danger other than with TT supplies.

So for the EICR only with a TT supply can lack of RCD get a code 2.

As to fire, be it metal boxes, provision or smoke alarms, etc. As far as I believe it is only when installing new I am worried about complying, existing installations don't need me to consider some thing I have not been trained to assess.

As said having a non safeguard BA22d bulb holder where children can assess is potential dangerous, specially if the bulb has been removed, and this is less dangerous to non safeguard BA22d bulb holder with no bulb in it. To assess the bare wires you need to remove the lamp or lift floor boards, yes it is wrong, it clearly states you need a tool to access wiring and you don't need a tool to remove insulation tape, but what danger does it really present? This is different, too close to beams, inner insulation showing, and clearly in a loft where you could assess, so yes code 2, but I do question even the best practice guide.

 

[JohnW2]

So I would say as a rule of thumb, if it complies with any edition of BS 7671 then it should have not C2 codes.

As I said, or at least implied, I can see that as a reasonable rule of thumb but, as I also said, I suspect there may be some things which some people might feel warranted more than a C3, even though they were compliant when installed (say in 1992) - however, as I also said, since I don't have access to BS7671:1992, I can't tell whether there are any things about which I would feel like that.

However, it's not a simple issue. If one takes the view that 'if something was deemed adequately safe in 1992, then it is still adequately safe in 2020' that then begs the question as to why the regulations have become progressively more demanding (nearly always in the name of 'increased safety') in those 28 years. Although it would be impractical/unworkable for it to be otherwise, it can easily be argued that if something is considered not to be adequately safe for a new build, or a re-wire, in 2020, it is not very logical to say that the same thing is adequately safe (in 2020) if it was installed at some point in the past.

So although I would fit RCD protection to reduce danger, it does not really reduce the potential danger ...

That one has me scratching my head What distinction are you making between "danger" and "potential danger"?[/QUOTE]

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Rather than playing with versions of 'safe', ask if the old installation or methods are dangerous.

 

[ericmark]

230 volt is protentialy dangerous, it does not matter what rules are followed, what we are really doing is a risk assessment, and the HSE does consider cost, things are not made safe, but made so the risk is at an acceptable level.

When the rules came out on crash helmets I felt we are permitted to commit suicide so why make wearing a helmet law, when wearing eye protection was not made law, and if a motorcyclist can't see he could injure or kill some one else, so eye protection was far more important.

It seems common sense is not always used or apprent with laws and rules. But @JohnW2 makes a good point if we didn't need RCD in 1992 why do we need it now? And the idea that s tenent does not have the option to fit the protection does make a good reason why the landlord should be forced to fit it, likely as with seat belts in cars with a sliding scale needs to be fitted by say 2025.

But the EICR is not an inspection and test limited to rental property, it is simply to tell owner what really needs doing first, when I moved into my current house found only a hand full of sockets RCD protected, most just a simple fuse, it took around 4 months to get around to replacing the consumer unit and fit all RCBO's and even then made a mistake and found fitted type AC instead of type A, I ordered up a couple of type A over 2 months ago, and still waiting for them, to expect in today's climate to up grade in 28 days is unworkable.

 

[JohnW2]

Rather than playing with versions of 'safe', ask if the old installation or methods are dangerous.

As with so many things in life which come as a 'spectrum', for purposes of decision-making, rule-drafting etc, one has to reduce them to dichotomous/binary situations by application of a (usually arbitrary) boundary.

Hence, whilst there can be endless debate to be had (and countless different views) about where the dividing line is to be drawn, for purposes such as drafting regulations about what is (and is not) acceptable/allowed (a binary decision), there cannot really be a grey area between 'safe' and 'dangerous'. Accordingly, 'not safe' = 'dangerous' and 'safe' = 'not dangerous'.

It's not a very 'satisfactory' situation, but we're stuck with it because it is a "fact of (virtually every aspect of) life". The problem is that the decision whether to 'allow' or 'not allow' something is necessarily itself binary - unless, that is, you can suggest some sensible middle category!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, I know but if something was considered 'safe' (to use) when it was fitted, then (assuming it has not deteriorated) it was considered by definition 'not dangerous'. Therefore the fact that there are now things making installations 'even safer' does not mean the old has become 'more dangerous' or even 'less safe' than it was.

 

[JohnW2]

.... But @JohnW2 makes a good point if we didn't need RCD in 1992 why do we need it now?

OR ... "if we need it now, why didn't we need it in 1992?"

We discussed that "why" at length recently. What RCDs can (and cannot) achieve (hence the degree of their potential impact on 'safety') has not changed between 1992 and 2020. However, what does change with the passage of time are views (on the part of both of the PTB and individuals) as to whhich risks (or degrees of risk) are 'acceptable' and which are not - and those changes of views about 'risk acceptability' can, and sometimes do, get a bit carried away with themselves.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I know but if something was considered 'safe' (to use) when it was fitted, then (assuming it has not deteriorated) it was considered by definition 'not dangerous'.

Exactly - but as I've just written to eric, what has changed is how safe something has to be for us to consider it 'safe to use' (or how dangerous it has to be for us to consider it 'not safe to use')

Therefore the fact that there are now things making installations 'even safer' does not mean the old has become 'more dangerous' or even 'less safe' than it was.

No - but, as above, what has changed are 'our' views about the acceptableness of 'how dangerous' (or 'how safe') it was back then. In other words, whilst you are obviously correct in saying that something is no more dangerous now than it was in the past, that does not mean that the degree of dangerousness/safeness that it had back then is any longer considered (by regs, laws, individuals or whatever) to be acceptable today.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, but I thought we were discussing whether old things had to be changed because of an EICR for the landlord requirements.

I do not think they do and the acceptance of C3s would appear to confirm this.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but I thought we were discussing whether old things had to be changed because of an EICR for the landlord requirements. I do not think they do and the acceptance of C3s would appear to confirm this.

That is, indeed, what we were discussing, and the government Guidance document (but not the legislation) goes a very long way to confirming what you say. That Guidance makes it clear that C3s are not a problem - so the only issue left is the question of what an electrician may decide to give a C2 to.

All the recent discussion (about whether something which was 'compliant when installed, but not now' should never be given a C2) was really the result of your post #12, in which you quoted some text about "... disputed areas .... which an electrician may code as C3 or C2 ...". I had assumed that this was a quote from the government Guidance document but, now that I look, I cannot find it there, nor in the NRLA document that had been mentioned. Where did the quote come from?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I only quoted that in post #12:

"There are some disputed areas, like the absence of RCDs on sockets, which an electrician may code as C3 or C2, depending on whether supplementary bonding is correct, an electric shower, or a socket likely to be used for outdoors equipment."

because it doesn't make sense and, as I said, seems to be a mix of two unrelated sentences.

What has supplementary bonding got to do with sockets and who would have an electric shower used for outdoor equipment.

 

[JohnW2]

I only quoted that in post #12: ..... because it doesn't make sense and, as I said, seems to be a mix of two unrelated sentences.

Yes, I realise that - but the fact is that it was largely because you quoted it that all this discussion arose about things which were 'compliant when installed' (but not compliant with current regs) possibly sometimes getting C2s .. and if they do get given C2s then they obviously are an issue/problem in terms of this new 'PRS' legislation.

So, again, where did that quote come from?

Kind Regards, John