PIR

[JohnW2]

The PIR has always offered subjectivity despite GN3. In my view anything that presents a risk of electric shock (direct or otherwise) or presents a risk of fire must be a code 1 and acted on immediately.

That's a reasonable enough statement - but in this case here we have had several differences of opinion about Code 1 matters. That presumably means that, depending on which of the three electricians he consulted, Joe Public would have markedly different opinions as to what matters needed to be 'acted upon imediately' (at Joe's cost).

It's a bit like MOT tests. Over the years, there have been a number of exercises of 'investigative journalism' in which the same vehicles have been submitted to several MOT testers, with dramatically varying outcomes in terms of the nature and cost of remedial work that was deemed to be necessary. Not surprisingly, the public are not very happy about such situations.

Subjectivity obviously exists in all walks of life, and cannot usually be completely avoided. I have, over the years, seen countless situations in which there was a 'frightening' degree of disagreement between experts in many fields. However, what we've seen in this thread is a bit more basic than that, since we've seen different conclusions (Codes) offered in relation to fairly 'black and white' situations; that, perhaps, is a little worrying.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

these three different people would presumably insist on different things being done (at a price) before they would be willing to replace the CU. For Joe Public this is a problem - one can advise him/her to get three quotes (for nothing) but it would be unreasonable to suggest that (s)he should pay for three PIRs!

That's a valid perspective but in reality we are only (in this thread) coding on basic information. With a comprehensive investigation, actually seeing the details I would be willing to bet that all three opinions would tend to coalesce.

You say that, but some of the issues about which we've seen varying opinions are (as I've just written in another post) pretty 'black and white ones, which really don't seem to need any 'more comprehensive investigation' - e.g. an absent CU blank or absent bonding of an oil line.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkticus]

You say that, but some of the issues about which we've seen varying opinions are (as I've just written in another post) pretty 'black and white ones, which really don't seem to need any 'more comprehensive investigation' - e.g. an absent CU blank or absent bonding of an oil line.

Yes but the missing CU blank may or may not allow easy accidental contact with live parts. Now technically (and I hope I am right in saying so without looking it up) a CU should have a top surface compliant with IPX4 or IPXXD and other surfaces of IPX2 or IPXXB which is quite objective. A missing blank on the font surface now takes us into the CU design. In other words, can you contact a live part via the open blank with a "standard finger" But disregarding all of that a missing blank simply may or may not present a real risk of danger depending upon proximity to live parts.

Now the oil line is quite clear (at least to me) it should be connected to the MET with an approved clamp fitted within 0.6M of the entry point into the building. Where the uncertainty comes here is the coding. In my view this is a code 1 but others may and obviously do disagree. In the context of fitting a new consumer this would need to be rectified without doubt since a new consumer unit requires an EIC and no main PBC on an incoming conductive service is a departure from BS7671.

 

[EFLImpudence]

A missing blank on the font surface now takes us into the CU design. In other words, can you contact a live part via the open blank with a "standard finger" But disregarding all of that a missing blank simply may or may not present a real risk of danger depending upon proximity to live parts.

Surely, there could quite possibly be an 'unused' part of the live busbar just inside and below the missing blank.
After all the blank is in the same position as the MCBs.

Now the oil line is quite clear (at least to me) it should be connected to the MET with an approved clamp fitted within 0.6M of the entry point into the building.

We cannot tell from 'here'. It may be supplied with a plastic pipe from the tank outside so not need bonding.
The OP was not specific.

 

[sparkticus]

Surely, there could quite possibly be an 'unused' part of the live busbar just inside and below the missing blank.
After all the blank is in the same position as the MCBs.

But that is my point. If we follow the rules for a CU (if I got that part right) then a missing blank does not comply with IPX2 or IPXXB so this is an issue but with what code? If you can accidentally contact a live busbar which is almost certainly going to be the case with most CU designs(not all) then that has got to be a code 1 right?

We cannot tell from 'here'. It may be supplied with a plastic pipe from the tank outside so not need bonding.
The OP was not specific.

That's a very good point. It may indeed be a plastic tank. Again, this is what I am saying about needing to see the details first.

Again, I will bet that if we all (electricians or not contributing to this thread) could see the exact details then we would code in a very similar way. I doubt if there would be any significant debate ----- just a minor miracle

 

[sparkticus]

In fact, we worked recently on an old manor house which had a plastic oil tank connected via copper (not sure of the size but about 8mm diameter) pipe which was run inside yellow plastic gas pipe for about 30 meters underground. I decided that because it was running underground that it would be wise to bond it as it entered the property but what is the real risk if I had not? It really is quite subjective.

 

[JohnW2]

But that is my point. If we follow the rules for a CU (if I got that part right) then a missing blank does not comply with IPX2 or IPXXB so this is an issue but with what code? If you can accidentally contact a live busbar which is almost certainly going to be the case with most CU designs(not all) then that has got to be a code 1 right?

The main things that you keep getting wrong are your references to IPX2 and IPX4 - I presume you mean IP2X and IP4X

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Again, I will bet that if we all (electricians or not contributing to this thread) could see the exact details then we would code in a very similar way. I doubt if there would be any significant debate ----- just a minor miracle

One would obviously like to think so, but I think it is apparent from various discussions that go on here that there is probably always going to be disagreement on some issues (particularly if earthing/bonding is involved ).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

The new EICR appears to go some way to provide more objectivity. But is defeated by the codes (proposed at the moment I believe) which, in my opinion, are just as subjective. There will be plenty of "blur" between C1 and C2 I think.
C1 DANGER PRESENT / RISK OF INJURY (immediate action required)
C2 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS (urgent remedial action required)
C3 IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED (improvement recommended)

As you say, there is good scope for subjectivity and debate regarding the C1/C2 distinction. Many problems which you and I would probably feel are serious enough to require immediate attention are, in fact, only 'potential dangers', since they only become dangerous if certain situations arise - things like absent main bonding, absent or malfunctioing protective devices etc.

However, it's C3 that I am even less clear about. Is it intended that any non-compliance with current regulations falls into that category? If not, what are meant to be the criteria for deciding whether things which were once compliant but are not compliant under current regs deserve a C3 or not? In the absence of fairly clear guidelines, that would surely be incredibly subjective, with inevitable considerable variation between different electrician's opinions?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkticus]

The main things that you keep getting wrong are your references to IPX2 and IPX4 - I presume you mean IP2X and IP4X

Oh no, there I go now, attempting to broadcast locations of the holy grail

 

[sparkticus]

The new EICR appears to go some way to provide more objectivity. But is defeated by the codes (proposed at the moment I believe) which, in my opinion, are just as subjective. There will be plenty of "blur" between C1 and C2 I think.
C1 DANGER PRESENT / RISK OF INJURY (immediate action required)
C2 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS (urgent remedial action required)
C3 IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED (improvement recommended)

As you say, there is good scope for subjectivity and debate regarding the C1/C2 distinction. Many problems which you and I would probably feel are serious enough to require immediate attention are, in fact, only 'potential dangers', since they only become dangerous if certain situations arise - things like absent main bonding, absent or malfunctioing protective devices etc.

However, it's C3 that I am even less clear about. Is it intended that any non-compliance with current regulations falls into that category? If not, what are meant to be the criteria for deciding whether things which were once compliant but are not compliant under current regs deserve a C3 or not? In the absence of fairly clear guidelines, that would surely be incredibly subjective, with inevitable considerable variation between different electrician's opinions?

Kind Regards, John.

For better or worse, a PIR/EICR is supposed to record all significant departures (allowing for agreed limitations) from the "current edition" of BS7671. Now if that is completed sensibly then only immediate dangers would be a C1, only serious departures (but not immediate dangers) would be a C2 and any issues such as labeling, circuit indentification, conductor indentification, no lighting CPC (but with classII fittings), etc, etc would make it to a C3. I raised the lighting CPC issue because it is acceptable to replace a consumer unit without installing new lighting circuits(to provide the CPC) provided an appropriate label is applied to the CU.

How many non-compliant issues do you enter as a C3? Some people might list things like "no grommets in metal backing box" when the wiring is completely immobilised by the underlying plaster. I personally think that is a complete waste of time and energy. My personal view is (in addition to obvious things like circuit indetification etc) record only what you would regard as something the current or future property owners might consider important.

Though for all that, I do agree with you that any PIR/EICR will show considerable variation between electricians (especially C3) but this is where communications with the customer is all important. What do they want? If this is this a PIR prior to changing a CU then the electrician should (in my opinion) agree with the customer to limit the scope of the PIR such that it covers only what is essential to a CU change plus any immediate dangers. If the report is for a landlord who wants to be absolutely sure his insurance will pay out then agree to scale the limitations accordingly. It is this limitation agreement which has been seriously under valued in the past. A PIR should be as comprehensive as the customer requires and equally important (to cover the electrician) properly recorded on the report with signatures.

Actually, and this may be controversial, I believe that these reports should be licensed. If an electrician wants to perform a PIR then he/she will be proud of the fact that they have been appropriately certified to do it professionally (there is a scheme but anyone can perform a PIR at the moment) So currently it is not far from a joke with highly inexperienced "electricians" and "competent persons" doing some in one/two hours without any reasonable agreement on limitations because many customers do not understand what to expect anyway. I firmly believe this is one area that needs a comprehensive overhaul.

 

[JohnW2]

For better or worse, a PIR/EICR is supposed to record all significant departures (allowing for agreed limitations) from the "current edition" of BS7671. Now if that is completed sensibly then only immediate dangers would be a C1, only serious departures (but not immediate dangers) would be a C2 and any issues such as labeling, circuit indentification, conductor indentification, no lighting CPC (but with classII fittings), etc, etc would make it to a C3.

No argument with any of that, accepting taht there will be some differing opinions about athe actual Code in some situations. The issue I was referring to is that expressed in your first sentence above....

How many non-compliant issues do you enter as a C3? Some people might list things like "no grommets in metal backing box" when the wiring is completely immobilised by the underlying plaster. I personally think that is a complete waste of time and energy. My personal view is (in addition to obvious things like circuit indetification etc) record only what you would regard as something the current or future property owners might consider important.

That is a good common sense approach, with which I have no problem. However, how does that square up with "a PIR/EICR is supposed to record all significant departures (allowing for agreed limitations) from the "current edition" of BS7671"? The examples you have discussed are mainly ones in which we can probably agree that it 'would be a good idea' to rectify the deviations, at least sometime. However, what about the (presumably very many) instances of things which are non-compliant with the current version of BS7671 only because of the evolution/tightening of the regs over time? I would guess that the most common of these will be RCD protection requirements and 'separation of circuits' (to reduce inconvenience due to protective devices operating). There must be literally millions of UK domestic installations which fail to comply with BS7671:2008, let alone BS7671:2008(2011), in those respects - should they all get C3s for that reason?

Actually, and this may be controversial, I believe that these reports should be licensed. If an electrician wants to perform a PIR then he/she will be proud of the fact that they have been appropriately certified to do it professionally (there is a scheme but anyone can perform a PIR at the moment) So currently it is not far from a joke with highly inexperienced "electricians" and "competent persons" doing some in one/two hours without any reasonable agreement on limitations because many customers do not understand what to expect anyway. I firmly believe this is one area that needs a comprehensive overhaul.

I agree with all of that. In fact, I might go further .... if it is really meant to be an 'EICR', in the literal sense, the concept of 'limitations' is a bit odd (even though I accept the serious impracticalities of not having such limitations). After all, the powers-that-be who require cars to undergo MOT tests would be far from impressed if I took my car to a test centre and (as the person 'commissioning and paying for the test) instructed the tester not to look at the tyres!

Kind Regards, John.