Applying regs retrospectively

[Guest125]

I know there is a lot out there who say that installations that were installed to a earlier regulation do not have to be brought up to the current if it was designed and installed to an earlier version.

My issue with this is:

1) You would have to know exactly when the installation was designed and completed along with any alterations over the years. Very unlikely in my opinion without a clear paper trail of certs and reports and would be a guess at best.

2) You would need to have access to every version of the regs and all amendments to see when (example) reg 123.4.5 came into force. Say 123.4.5 was not in the 15th 1st amendment but was in the 3rd amendment. Even then you could not be sure if it was under a different reg number in other regs books.

I suppose my question is would it not be easier to advise customers on bringing their installation unto current standards no matter how uncomfortable this may seem. Without specifics I would imagine most issues would only be C3 anyway so would still warrant a 'satisfactory" assessment.

Just my interpretation but I am interested how others can ascertain points 1 & 2 above if they state regulations cannot be back dated?

Discuss.

 

[Guest125]

It's all very well to want to bring everything up to the latest regs, but it's often not justifiable.

For instance, one of the buildings that I was responsible for in my previous job was a ten story tower block. It was originally constructed in the 1960's for academic use. There had been a multitude of changes made over 50 years. Some bits were original, others brand new.

It would have been impossible both operationally and financially to bring the whole installation up to 17th standards. We had to manage what was installed and make judgements on what was safe for continued use and what wasn't.

The principle is the same whatever size the installation is. Lots of things are not perfect or are untidy or even rough, but we have to make a judgment as to whether they are safe for continued use.

We have the same issue at Plymouth Station. The building above is 10 stories and an absolute mess. Took us a month just to test it all.

I had a conversation with NR this morning in which I said that it will be probably more economical both short and long term to strip out a floor at at time and redo. To attempt a 'make good' job would be never ending and cost more in the long run.

Tough call though.

 

[D Skelton]

Yes mate.

"Showing my age"

Isn't that something you say when you're old??

 

[ImpededLoop]

We have the same issue at Plymouth Station. The building above is 10 stories and an absolute mess. Took us a month just to test it all.

I had a conversation with NR this morning in which I said that it will be probably more economical both short and long term to strip out a floor at at time and redo. To attempt a 'make good' job would be never ending and cost more in the long run.

Tough call though.

Then you have to consider whether to renew the transformer, main switchgear, risers, fire alarm etc, etc. Not to mention that the mechanical services will likely be in a similar state and if you're going that far the internal finishes and glazing.

It opens a whole can of worms!

 

[spark 68]

UKES, it is about understanding that whether something done to a previous version is safe or "potentially" un-safe for continued use, for instance undersized bonding if it was smaller than 6mm I would not be happy giving a C3 for (maybe a C2), likewise for a sole means of earthing via a public water supply pipe, for green earth sleeving no code, fused Neutrals a C2.

ie. we use our knowledge and experience to determine what is still safe or not, the state and overall condition of the install would have a large bearing on the either way codes, If something was installed to the 16th or even 15th and had not been hacked about and was in pristine condition still, then I would more likely err on C3s, apart from maybe old VOELCBs on 15th edition installs, mainly because I have no means of testing/verifying their continued effectiveness.

An upfront 30mA RCD on a 16th edition install provided it still worked is not dangerous per se, inconvenient maybe ? not to current regs ? certainly, C3 for sure, maybe if it was in an elderly/infirm occupants house it could be considered potentially dangerous, but could I condemn an otherwise fully serviceable installation on that alone ? probably not, maybe cover my backside by stating my recommendations and stating which earlier edition it was wired to.

The IET even says older edition installs may not meet current disconnection times and other current standards but we should not automatically condemn them out of hand, a judgement call is required, and this means using knowledge and experience to gauge on actual real potential dangers not just because it doesn't comply with all the latest and greatest.

 

[Guest125]

"Showing my age"

Isn't that something you say when you're old??

I meant by me not knowing about the date of what ever you call it. Showed that I was a 'youngen'

 

[Guest125]

Then you have to consider whether to renew the transformer, main switchgear, risers, fire alarm etc, etc. Not to mention that the mechanical services will likely be in a similar state and if you're going that far the internal finishes and glazing.

It opens a whole can of worms!

Have you you been to site??? Glazing was being looked at over Xmas.

 

[Guest125]

UKES, it is about understanding that whether something done to a previous version is safe or "potentially" un-safe for continued use, for instance undersized bonding if it was smaller than 6mm I would not be happy giving a C3 for (maybe a C2), likewise for a sole means of earthing via a public water supply pipe, for green earth sleeving no code, fused Neutrals a C2.

ie. we use our knowledge and experience to determine what is still safe or not, the state and overall condition of the install would have a large bearing on the either way codes, If something was installed to the 16th or even 15th and had not been hacked about and was in pristine condition still, then I would more likely err on C3s, apart from maybe old VOELCBs on 15th edition installs, mainly because I have no means of testing/verifying their continued effectiveness.

An upfront 30mA RCD on a 16th edition install provided it still worked is not dangerous per se, inconvenient maybe ? not to current regs ? certainly, C3 for sure, maybe if it was in an elderly/infirm occupants house it could be considered potentially dangerous, but could I condemn an otherwise fully serviceable installation on that alone ? probably not, maybe cover my backside by stating my recommendations and stating which earlier edition it was wired to.

The IET even says older edition installs may not meet current disconnection times and other current standards but we should not automatically condemn them out of hand, a judgement call is required, and this means using knowledge and experience to gauge on actual real potential dangers not just because it doesn't comply with all the latest and greatest.

I think you put it perfectly and agree with everything you said. My point was to start a discussion as I don't think many have this view.

 

[plugsandsparks]

"Showing my age"

Isn't that something you say when you're old??

err, can I just clarify, what is old ? - old to me is 80 plus, just sayin

 

[ImpededLoop]

Have you you been to site??? Glazing was being looked at over Xmas.

Don't refurbish it before replacing the roof!

 

[UNG]

For crying out loud! It's not "a lot out there who claim that installations don't have to be brought up to current regs" it's fact! There's notes on how to carry out an EICR, read them.
On the form itself, there's a question "estimated age of installation" if someone can't make an educated guess at the age of it should they really be carrying out EICRs?
There's a very fine line between giving advice to a customer and telling them that they need to do X Y and Z to bring their installations up to compliance with current regs "Because that's illegal that is mate"

I love that phrase but it's totally different to an installation being non compliant

We all know that.

How could you be sure to answer point 1 & 2 with a little accuracy without the knowledge as I said. I am not saying anything is right or wrong I would just like someone to convince me with a fact. Not just someone saying "this is a fact mate" but showing me.

I do not listen to sparks that say "this is how it is done' without backing it up.

How accurate are you trying to be day, month, year or +/- 1 year, +/- 2years the cert says estimated age of installation and that's a big clue as to the accuracy reqd as far as I'm aware there is no lynch mob if you don't get it bang on right.
Experience is your biggest friend here in making that informed decision

NOTE: Due to your incessant posting / trolling if you respond to my comments they will not be read by me you are being moderated by me adding you to my ignore list.