BS7671 524.1, C2 or C3

[GBDamo]

Well that took a while.

 

[7029 dave]

Well that took a while.

Yeah 26 posts worth.

 

[EricMark]

Oh dear, what was happening hear, how could anyone consider even 0.5 mm² cable with a 3 amp fuse was potential dangerous?

I must admit there does seem to be a difference in some books and paperwork as to what is and appliance and what is an installation, I would have said cooker hoods, extractor fans, boilers, immersion heater, built in cookers and hobs etc were alliances, but it seems building regulations class them as installations as they are fixed to the building.

So if part of an EICR then we most inspect and test them, as with opening a plug if not moulded to check there is a clamp on the flex, you should also open up the appliance to ensure all cables are suitable clamped, however we are told the covers on a boiler are part of the gas tight structure and should only be removed by some one registered as gas safe, so it seems boilers are a special case.

However the EICR had code 4 dropped, it was dropped because there was a problem listing all the non compliance with latest editions, the problem was unless there is an installation certificate for an installations then no tester can know if the design was before or after a change in BS 7671 requirements, so the tester would have to test and inspect as if it was installed yesterday, the result was loads of unnecessary code 4 being raised, not sure if a agree with code 4 going, as I feel the owner needs to know before adding to a circuit for example a RCD will need fitting, but the IET seems to have felt loads and loads of code 4's was not help full so was dropped.

However nothing stopping you recommending fitting of an RCD so that circuits can be altered in the future without problems.

But essentially when we moved from code 1,2,3,4 to C1, C2, C3 then our remit changed and we report on the condition and safety of the installation not as to if it follows current or any other version of BS 7671, hence why professional indemnity insurance is required, your giving your opinion, not that of any publication. The books may guide you as to what is permitted, as lets face it, 230 volt is always potential dangerous, and our insurers may give conditions which could include must comply was a set of rules they feel appropriate. But latest edition of BS 7671 does not really help when the latest edition always starts with the dates to which it covers designs from, so a house where wiring designed in 1965 still does not need an earth to light fittings, or any RCD, if following the wiring regulations, will not say BS 7671 as it did not exist back then.

In this case of course covered by latest edition, however since EICR is not any longer tied to any edition since dropping of code 4, then your looking at danger not if it complies.

So for example if I inspect a property with a type AC 100 mA RCD and a TT supply, and a electric car charging point has been added even a 16 amp one, then does it fail, even with all 30 mA does it fail? As the RCD may not trip due to a fault with the car charging. But hang on back in 1954 when house built and the installation was designed we did not have a RCD, but in 1954 with did not have so many electrical goods, my dad told me how proud he was of the electrics of his new house, as it had 5 sockets, my grand fathers house only had 2. And in my great grand fathers day plugging the smoothing iron into lights was illegal as lights was on a different meter to sockets and you paid less for electric from lights meter. Grandma always plugged iron into lights, there were no sockets in the kitchen.

When the MOT came out, we had a book, and it said what the tolerances were, and I remember a dial gauge on a wagon wheel to measure king pin play, if allowed 1/8" that was limit, never mind if safe or not, but if it was not safe, the Dot could still stop you on way home from test station and issue a GV9, even if it did pass the MOT.

So in theory with a new install some one can follow BS 7671 to the letter, and then some one can come and do an EICR and issue a code 2, as they feel it is potential dangerous even if it follows BS 7671. The reverse is also true, an EICR is not anything to do with BS 7671 it is a personal assessment, OK we are guided by many publications as to what we pass or fail but we are not tied to BS 7671 although we may be tied to what our insurers say.

 

[loz2754]

Oh dear, what was happening hear, how could anyone consider even 0.5 mm² cable with a 3 amp fuse was potential dangerous?

I must admit there does seem to be a difference in some books and paperwork as to what is and appliance and what is an installation, I would have said cooker hoods, extractor fans, boilers, immersion heater, built in cookers and hobs etc were alliances, but it seems building regulations class them as installations as they are fixed to the building.

So if part of an EICR then we most inspect and test them, as with opening a plug if not moulded to check there is a clamp on the flex, you should also open up the appliance to ensure all cables are suitable clamped, however we are told the covers on a boiler are part of the gas tight structure and should only be removed by some one registered as gas safe, so it seems boilers are a special case.

However the EICR had code 4 dropped, it was dropped because there was a problem listing all the non compliance with latest editions, the problem was unless there is an installation certificate for an installations then no tester can know if the design was before or after a change in BS 7671 requirements, so the tester would have to test and inspect as if it was installed yesterday, the result was loads of unnecessary code 4 being raised, not sure if a agree with code 4 going, as I feel the owner needs to know before adding to a circuit for example a RCD will need fitting, but the IET seems to have felt loads and loads of code 4's was not help full so was dropped.

However nothing stopping you recommending fitting of an RCD so that circuits can be altered in the future without problems.

But essentially when we moved from code 1,2,3,4 to C1, C2, C3 then our remit changed and we report on the condition and safety of the installation not as to if it follows current or any other version of BS 7671, hence why professional indemnity insurance is required, your giving your opinion, not that of any publication. The books may guide you as to what is permitted, as lets face it, 230 volt is always potential dangerous, and our insurers may give conditions which could include must comply was a set of rules they feel appropriate. But latest edition of BS 7671 does not really help when the latest edition always starts with the dates to which it covers designs from, so a house where wiring designed in 1965 still does not need an earth to light fittings, or any RCD, if following the wiring regulations, will not say BS 7671 as it did not exist back then.

In this case of course covered by latest edition, however since EICR is not any longer tied to any edition since dropping of code 4, then your looking at danger not if it complies.

So for example if I inspect a property with a type AC 100 mA RCD and a TT supply, and a electric car charging point has been added even a 16 amp one, then does it fail, even with all 30 mA does it fail? As the RCD may not trip due to a fault with the car charging. But hang on back in 1954 when house built and the installation was designed we did not have a RCD, but in 1954 with did not have so many electrical goods, my dad told me how proud he was of the electrics of his new house, as it had 5 sockets, my grand fathers house only had 2. And in my great grand fathers day plugging the smoothing iron into lights was illegal as lights was on a different meter to sockets and you paid less for electric from lights meter. Grandma always plugged iron into lights, there were no sockets in the kitchen.

When the MOT came out, we had a book, and it said what the tolerances were, and I remember a dial gauge on a wagon wheel to measure king pin play, if allowed 1/8" that was limit, never mind if safe or not, but if it was not safe, the Dot could still stop you on way home from test station and issue a GV9, even if it did pass the MOT.

So in theory with a new install some one can follow BS 7671 to the letter, and then some one can come and do an EICR and issue a code 2, as they feel it is potential dangerous even if it follows BS 7671. The reverse is also true, an EICR is not anything to do with BS 7671 it is a personal assessment, OK we are guided by many publications as to what we pass or fail but we are not tied to BS 7671 although we may be tied to what our insurers say.

When I conduct an inspection and test it is always to the current edition of the latest standard, BS7671. There will be things that do not comply to the current edition but may still be considered safe for continued use. This is where the experience and judgment come in. It is up to me as the inspector to decide on what code, if any, to apply to any such non compliances. In some cases I don't put a code but still make a comment so the person ordering the report is at least aware. In other cases, I use my experience and judgment to decide between a C2, C3 or FI.
I use whatever guidance I can find if there is something I'm not sure of. But always, in every case, the standard I am using to judge each case is the current edition of BS7671.

 

[Rockingit]

OK we are guided by many publications as to what we pass or fail but we are not tied to BS 7671 although we may be tied to what our insurers say.

Your insurer's will say the same as every other body - adhere to BS7671 and you'll most likely be fine.

 

[EricMark]

So every BS 7671 edition I have is only valid for designs after a set date, so you will need the installation certificate to get the design date and a van full of reference books to select the correct year. As when each current edition was current it refers you back to older editions when not a new installation, this was why I did not agree with removal of code 4

 

[loz2754]

So every BS 7671 edition I have is only valid for designs after a set date, so you will need the installation certificate to get the design date and a van full of reference books to select the correct year. As when each current edition was current it refers you back to older editions when not a new installation, this was why I did not agree with removal of code 4

Why would I need this if I am conducting the inspection and test to the current edition of BS7671?-

"GN3 3.12 Periodic inspection of installations constructed to an earlier edition of BS7671 or the IEE Wiring Regulations
People often ask what standard should be applied when carrying out the periodic inspection of an installation constructed in accordance with an earlier edition of BS7671, or an even earlier edition of the IEE Wiring Regulations or to an unknown standard. Each edition of the Wiring Regulations has provided for an increase of safety to the users of the installations. Particular installation practices and methods that were compliant with earlier editions would be considered to be unacceptable now, such as the use of a public water pipe as a means of earthing, which would be considered as potentially dangerous now.

In all cases the inspection should be carried out against the current edition of BS7671. (italics mine)

It is likely that there will be items that do not comply with that edition but this does not necessarily mean that the installation is unsafe. If the inspector considers that an item, although not warranting Code C1, C2 requires improvement, it should be given Code C3 on the Electrical Installation Condition Report. If the item does not require improvement it does not need to be recorded as an observation."

 

[EricMark]

As said your looking for degrading and danger, not compliance with any edition of BS 7671, in most cases it is the same, but to say anything passes or fails just because it complies or does not comply with BS 7671 is not enough.

The problem as I see it is other regulations and laws, BS 7671 is not law, but there are fire regulations which have caused changes in the BS 7671 which are law, if I make any reference to fire regulations I run the chance of getting it wrong, and I need to make it very clear I am only testing for electrical safety.

I had a home buyers report, which included reference to the electrical installation, where it referred to the condition of the electrics, it as a result is an electrical installation condition report, it reports on the electrical installation condition, but it is clearly not what we would call an EICR.

 

[ohreally]

I would suggest the appliance is left to the individual testing the fixed appliances during the PAT regime.