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]

In compiling an EICR, what matters is not whether is was 'correct' or 'incorrect' to the regs at the time, it's whether, in your professional opinion, it's acceptably safe now.

If you're producing an EIC for work you've just done then, of course, compliance with the regs applicable at the time is important.

I completely agree with you. It is some people on here keep telling me "if it was ok when it was installed then you cannot put it on a report"

This I disagree with. I think that we should be reporting to the CURRENT regs and not leaving things off because they were "designed and installed to the 16th".

To be clear. When we compile a report we use whatever the current standards are as our benchmark and all recommendations are made to the current regulations.

 

[Guest125]

No you don't. I'm sorry but all the answers to your misguided perspective have been given in this thread. It's like you are not reading the responses. You need to research the fundamental requirements of EICR if you are still confused.

I cannot understand how anyone can say 'it was installed to the 16th so it is ok' unless KNOWING when that installation was completed.

That is my only point. Why do you need to answer like that?

 

[Anthony S]

I am not asking that.

How would you ascertain points 1 & 2 in the OP?

You asked this question

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.

and I answered it because for what ever the reasons might be, its you who would find it easier to bring the installation up to current standards.

 

[HandySparks]

I completely agree with you. It is some people on here keep telling me "if it was ok when it was installed then you cannot put it on a report"

This I disagree with. I think that we should be reporting to the CURRENT regs and not leaving things off because they were "designed and installed to the 16th".

To be clear. When we compile a report we use whatever the current standards are as our benchmark and all recommendations are made to the current regulations.

Not quite what I meant. Or perhaps we have different standards.

For example, if there's no RCD protection for T&E cables buried in the plaster in domestic premises, I would not mark that as unsatisfactory on an EICR, even though it's a requirement of the current regs.

If I found a 13A socket for use outside with no RCD, then I'd say unsatisfactory.

You need to make a judgement, rather than applying all the current regs.

Take a look at the guidance on the Electrical Safety First website:
Electrical Safety First

Best Practice Guide No. 4
Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety First

 

[7029 dave]

FYI, take heed of the introduction, that will answer your question

 

[Guest125]

You asked this question

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.

and I answered it because for what ever the reasons might be, its you who would find it easier to bring the installation up to current standards.

That is not true. Network Rail like to have clean reports. Free from any recommendations.

 

[D Skelton]

Showing you age - and mine ;-)

Huh?

You're in your early thirties aren't you?!

 

[Guest125]

FYI, take heed of the introduction, that will answer your question

Yes I have that. And it does. All installations should be tested to the CURRENT regs. As it says in the introduction. Although this does not mean that and 'issues' raised make the installation unsafe.

 

[Guest125]

Huh?

You're in your early thirties aren't you?!

Yes mate.

 

[ImpededLoop]

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.

 

[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'