Code on eicr? help resolve an arguement

[Sparky Ninja]

Sigh..

Okay.

Perhaps I have repeated myself, only because you haven't answered.
You stated that you asked for a task specific Risk Assessment.
Such a statement suggests you expect there to be a written Risk Assessment.
There's no law requiring written Risk Assessments.
Yes documenting Risk Assessments can be useful, but still there is no Statutory requirement to do so.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 - just in case you are not sure, this a legal thingy

3.—(1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—

(a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and

(b)the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,

(6) Where the employer employs five or more employees, he shall record—

(a)the significant findings of the assessment; and

(b)any group of his employees identified by it as being especially at risk.

So when you asked for the Risk Assessment, did they respond that they had not conducted one, or just that they didn't have a written copy?
Still no explaination as to why you treat dwellings differently to Schools. Perhaps electricity in dwellings is different from that in Schools?

You are probably not at work in a dwelling and so the requirements of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations won't apply.

But as I said, I wouldn't put a dwelling into a stereotype. I would assess it properly and dynamically.

You mentioned reference guides, summary sheets and NICEIC pocket guides. What you need is none of those, you just need a copy of BS7671.
As long as you conduct your inspection in accordance with BS7671, everything will be fine.
Problem with your coding, is it is not in accordance with BS7671.
You are basically stating that something is unsafe today which the Regulations said was safe last year.
There is no way that any edition or amendment of BS7671 is ever going to say earlier editions or amendments had unsafe requirements.

BS 7671:2008 2011

411.3.3 Additional Protection

In a.c. systems, additional protection by means of an RCD in accordance with Regulation 415.1 shall be provided for:

1. socket-outlets with a rated current not exceeding 20 A that are for use by ordinary persons and are intended for general use, and
2. mobile equipment with a current rating not exceeding 32 A for use outdoors.

An exception to 1. is permitted for:
(a) socket-outlets for use under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons, or
(b) a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of equipment.


BS 7671:2008 2015

411.3.3 Additional Protection

In a.c. systems, additional protection by means of an RCD in accordance with Regulation 415.1 shall be provided for:

1. socket-outlets with a rated current not exceeding 20 A, and
2. mobile equipment with a current rating not exceeding 32 A for use outdoors.

An exception to 1. is permitted for:
(a) where, other than for an installation in a dwelling, a documented risk assessment determines that the RCD protection is not necessary, or
(b) a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of equipment.



So what is the big difference.. well with the 2011 edition of BS 7671 and prior, it was considered acceptable for a place of work to negate the need for RCD protection as a skilled or instructed person would attend in the role of caretaker or maintenance guy. Basically someone who had sufficient knowledge to avoid danger.

With the changes to definitions in 2015, this skilled persons would now need 'adequate education' to satisfy this role.
In most cases the person in schools and similar roles would not necessarily possess the adequate education to remain in the role so the regulation was reworded to say a risk assessment is need.
Nobody wants to publicly announce what the 'adequate education' of a caretaker, landlord or similar should be...
Translated that means 'we know your guy may not have adequate education, or his education may be questionable. So carry out a documented risk assessment instead'.


So while an older standard could rest on the observation by skilled/instructed persons, it now needs a documented risk assessment.


I am not saying the installation is less safe, the regulations have tightened definitions that were more loosely interpreted and has applied tighter control procedures that clearly some people have never seen or asked for.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The documented Risk Assessment requirement was introduced coincidently because it was found that Head teachers were abusing the skilled/instructed persons definition, by saying they were the skilled person and the staff were all instructed.
My argument at the time, was if that is the case, they need to be reported to the HSE for breaking the law.
We should not be changing a non-statutory standard in an attempt to force people to comply with Statutory requirements.
If they are unwilling to comply with Statutory requirements why should you expect them to comply with non-statutory?

I still find it odd that if the IET found so many instances where Head teachers were breaking the law, none of them were reported.

The document management of the health and safety at work Regulations 1999 is not Statutory and therefore not a legal thingy at all.
It is like the approved document Part P, a guide nothing more.

Yes I am well aware of the changes to Regulation 411.3.3.
The point being that if the sockets were installed prior to the change, perhaps even before the introduction of the 17th edition. Then they would have complied at the time of their design/construction.
As BS7671 states that installations constructed to earlier editions are not necessarily unsafe, that upgrading to the new requirements is not required, the use of a code C2 (potentially dangerous) is unwarranted and not in accordance with the requirements of BS7671.

No that is not correct at all.
Prior to the amendment in 2015, it was deemed that the statutory requirement for workers to have technical knowledge, experience or be under adequate supervision to negate the dangers electricity may present was sufficient.
For some reason ( I doubt the given reason) it was decided to change 411.3.3 to require a documented RA (not aware that the requirement actually states the RA must conclude RCD protection is not required), and for a copy of the documented RA be appended to the EIC (not sure there is a requirement to append a copy to an EICR?).
Not aware of any requirement for a skilled person to now need further education. Though as there is no longer an exception for skilled or instructed persons, I would have no interest.

Sorry but you are saying the installation is less safe.
An situation that would have not attracted any code at all prior to the 3rd amendment you are now saying is potentially dangerous.

 

[Stspark]

Of course I understand the concerns raised however I'd of C3'd the socket outlets and perhaps an attached written letter strongly recommending the duty holder to improve the circuit.
The school may have strict pat test routine or policy's on no minors using the sockets.

Additionally, similarly to hospital HTM's. In schools I'd expect there is other technical/estates best practice guidelines that the duty holder should be adhering to. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a requirement for general use socket outlets in classrooms to be rcd protected, perhaps even to 10mA. This is down to the duty holder and estates team to manage though.

 

[Stevesplatto]

For specifics about UK sockets see fatally flawed (google it). If the shutters are intact and the socket isnt damaged and there are no 'socket protectors' in place I would have C3'd with a comment. The sockets are the best in europe, even children cannot get their fingers past the shutters. Having said that clearly there is a risk with bubble machines and other liquid using equipment. Common sense over rides everything so a covering letter...