EICR codes when RECENT works don't comply!?

[S P]

Andy I always hear we can't condemn an installation that conforms to the standards at the time of installation but we are talking about an install that didn't confirm to the increased safety at the time. I get what you're saying "Why is something classed as more dangerous for the same issue because of a different installation date ?" But then why were the news regs bought into place?

 

[S P]

Hum .... The issue I have with this, is simple, only the designer & installer will actually know how a cable is protected in a wall as any other form of protection may be completely hidden.

I asked another installer about why they had omitted rcd protection on 3 circuits recently. ...... They simply said that the circuits complied.... And didn't elaborate .... But anyone doing an EICR on a post 2015 property is going to code such a circuit as a c3 .....

It was clear from the switches I opened the cable was embedded in plaster >50mm

 

[S P]

Something to consider, is the date of design.
An installation designed to the 16th edition can then be constructed some years after the 17th edition came into force.
For example the Olympic Athletes’ village in Stratford.
Designed to the 16th edition, construction completed in March 2015, some 7 years after the 17th was issued.

Another thing to consider: There is no requirement to provide RCD protection for cables concealed in walls.
It is just an option.

Thanks Spin, but your giving this guy too much credit...

 

[westward10]

I have this year converted my downstairs corridor lights to two way, cables concealed in oval conduit, no additional rcd protection and obsolete red, yellow and blue cable to boot

 

[Risteard]

Andy I always hear we can't condemn an installation that conforms to the standards at the time of installation

Although that is an oft repeated phrase it is, nonetheless, incorrect.

Again I will use the examples of fused neutrals: these were permitted once, but that certainly wouldn't stop be from condemning them if I came across them now.

 

[Baker1988]

I would give a c3 to a cable in a wall less than 50mm depth i certainly would not give a c2.

Sockets i might give a c2 but depends on other factors really, will eqipment be plugged in for out side use and stuff like that.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Although that is an oft repeated phrase it is, nonetheless, incorrect.

Again I will use the examples of fused neutrals: these were permitted once, but that certainly wouldn't stop be from condemning them if I came across them now.

As it’s BS7671 which states installations which complied with earlier editions, are not necessarily unsafe and do not require upgrading, citing instances that complied with pre-BS7671 Regulations is rather redundant.
BS7671 came into being in 2001 during the 16th edition.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I would give a c3 to a cable in a wall less than 50mm depth i certainly would not give a c2.

Sockets i might give a c2 but depends on other factors really, will eqipment be plugged in for out side use and stuff like that.

Problem here, is that there is no longer a requirement to provide RCD protection for sockets that might be used to supply equipment outdoors.
Would it be right to make an observation and apply a code for a non-compliance with a requirement from an earlier edition?

 

[Risteard]

As it’s BS7671 which states installations which complied with earlier editions, are not necessarily unsafe and do not require upgrading

Nowhere does it state that they "do not require upgrading". What it actually states is that they do not necessarily require upgrading just because they don't comply with every respect with the current Standard. This doesn't give it carte blanche. It just means that due consideration must be given to the particular non-compliance and a safety judgement made.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Nowhere does it state that they "do not require upgrading". What it actually states is that they do not necessarily require upgrading just because they don't comply with every respect with the current Standard. This doesn't give it carte blanche. It just means that due consideration must be given to the particular non-compliance and a safety judgement made.

That is not what it means at all.
It means that just because the requirements have changed, it doesn’t now make it unsafe and it doesn’t have to be updated.
Remember, every new edition or amendment, allows an installation to be constructed to earlier editions after the new edition/amendment has come into force.

 

[Baker1988]

Problem here, is that there is no longer a requirement to provide RCD protection for sockets that might be used to supply equipment outdoors.
Would it be right to make an observation and apply a code for a non-compliance with a requirement from an earlier edition?

I thought reg 411.3.3 additional protection did require rcd protection for sockets not exceeding 20A and for mobile equipment not exceeding 32A for use outdoor, and that is in the new BYB

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes it requires RCD protection for sockets (that are not intended for specific items of equipment) and for mobile equipment used outdoors.
There is no longer a requirement to protect sockets that could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors.

 

[Baker1988]

I know but in the best practuce guide 4 it says a c2 for the absence of a rcd for portable or mobile equipment that may be reasonable used out doors so if there was a lawnmower in the shed i would be able to reasonably assume that it will be plugged in so if that socket dont have rcd protection then the equipment would not have rcd protection.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes, that’s one of the problems with the BPG.
Inspect an installation to the current requirements then fail it for not complying with old requirements.
Follow that logic and we should fail due to lack of fuse in the Neutral.

 

[Wilko]

I have this year converted my downstairs corridor lights to two way, cables concealed in oval conduit, no additional rcd protection and obsolete red, yellow and blue cable to boot

Doesn't that fall under the "don't ask don't tell" reg?