EICR's and previous editions of Regs

[Devonchris]

Reading the recent post about the barber shop and no RCDs I was wondering,

If an installation was satisfactory under a previous edition of Regs. And if no alterations have been made to it, or no other problems are evident, since installation, is it still satisfactory and therefore can't be coded C1 or C2?

If someone carrying out the EICR has no knowledge or experience of previous editions of the regs, then how would they know if it was satisfactory?

Or are previous editions dealt with on the short courses for testing and inspection qualifications?

Should someone carrying out an EICR be overly concerned about what may or may not be plugged into a socket, to the extent that they would code the installation unsatisfactory even though it was previously ok.

I'm not getting involved in any of this, it's just that there seems to be a lack of any concensus of opinion. Which from a customer's point of view is disappointing.

 

[westward10]

The reason for so many mixed messages is probably because a huge percentage of people doing EICRs are not competent or experienced enough to be doing them. That is clear from this forum by the questions of "how do you Code this that and tother", questions you shouldn't even be asking.

 

[suffolkspark]

you test & inspect to the current edition of the regs, the most important point to remember is you want to sleep at night

 

[Octopus]

a C1 has nothing to do with the version of the regs - this is some immediately dangerous..................

 

[Ian1981]

Reading the recent post about the barber shop and no RCDs I was wondering,

If an installation was satisfactory under a previous edition of Regs. And if no alterations have been made to it, or no other problems are evident, since installation, is it still satisfactory and therefore can't be coded C1 or C2?

If someone carrying out the EICR has no knowledge or experience of previous editions of the regs, then how would they know if it was satisfactory?

Or are previous editions dealt with on the short courses for testing and inspection qualifications?

Should someone carrying out an EICR be overly concerned about what may or may not be plugged into a socket, to the extent that they would code the installation unsatisfactory even though it was previously ok.

I'm not getting involved in any of this, it's just that there seems to be a lack of any concensus of opinion. Which from a customer's point of view is disappointing.

Not strictly true that you can't code a C2 from earlier editions that complied once as long ago double pole fusing was acceptable where now it's potentially dangerous.
I'm going back a bit, well before my time and you might be hard pushed to find any installations with that arrangement but you get my drift?

 

[Ian1981]

Deleted

 

[Stspark]

Interesting thread. As @westward10 says, a proper eicr should only be completed by experienced and competent electricians.
It's quite concerning with the recent dumbing down of 2391 course, a course which used to only be attempted by electricians with significant practical experience is now being undertaken by trainee's and by person's with little or no practical experience. Eicr is becoming on par with Pat testing.

 

[leep82]

Ive not carried out many EICR's despite having my 2391 for 5 years or more. Im more than happy testing my own work or any new installations but have to admit to feeling a little overwhelmed on the few EICR's ive done. As already mentioned experience is key but how do you get experience if you dont do them, sometimes you have to throw yourself in at the deep end and forums like this can provide an excellent source of useful knowledge and information.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

you test & inspect to the current edition of the regs, the most important point to remember is you want to sleep at night

You clearly shouldn't do a EICR to the current regs. If the installation complys to the regulations in place when it was tested then an improvement can be advised as a C3. However as stated above something which was in those regs which is clearly dangerous can be advised as a C2.

 

[suffolkspark]

You clearly shouldn't do a EICR to the current regs. If the installation complys to the regulations in place when it was tested then an improvement can be advised as a C3. However as stated above something which was in those regs which is clearly dangerous can be advised as a C2.

You test & inspect it to the current edition of the regulations. You wouldn't just pass an installation "because it was alright at the time" would you? what about changes in RCD requirements, updates to max EFLI values, non-combustible consumer units? these things all potentially need codes whether C2 or C3.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

You clearly shouldn't do a EICR to the current regs. If the installation complys to the regulations in place when it was tested then an improvement can be advised as a C3. However as stated above something which was in those regs which is clearly dangerous can be advised as a C2.

So in schools where nearly all stairwells are wired in PVC conduit with no fire resistant fixings, your going to pull that as a C2? In factory's where they have 200+ sockets not RCD protected your going to C2 that? In Mrs Jones 2006 rewired house your going to tell her that she needs a new dist board cause it's made from a combustible material and her downstairs lighting circuit is less that 50mm into the building fabric.

As stated thing that are dangerous can be added as a C2. EFLI values I agree on, RCD protection in special locations and for outdoor equipment, fire resistant spotlights etc in some cases. But for everything to be tested as c2ed up to the current regs you having a laugh.... And your going to be smashing in a serious amount of earth rods from 2019 onwards

 

[Des 56]

You test and inspect to determine if an installation is safe for continued use
The test and inspection is carried out with comparison to current regulations

What was once considered safe doesn't suddenly become unsafe because its of a previous edition
Relevant codes can be used which should reflect those changes to regulations since the original installation date are noted

All this talf about potentially millions of unsatisfactory installations (that are not new) is clearly wrong
Its probably why experience of older installations can be essential for the inspector to have

 

[Lee42]

I have done 7 eicr this month.
Some passed, some failed. You can only test the installation to the current regs. If it's an installation from the 16th edition it doesn't mean it's going to fail. The most common c2 I write down is no supplementry bonding in bathrooms without rcd protection. No rcd protection on sockets intended for use outdoors and not safety cutout on immersion heaters. The rest for eg, no identification of conductors, no rcd protection, incorrect fire rating of cu would be wrote as c3.
I don't think I have ever wrote a c1, eg live connection on show or no blanks in cu. Will normally sort them out there and then

 

[suffolkspark]

So in schools where nearly all stairwells are wired in PVC conduit with no fire resistant fixings, your going to pull that as a C2? In factory's where they have 200+ sockets not RCD protected your going to C2 that? In Mrs Jones 2006 rewired house your going to tell her that she needs a new dist board cause it's made from a combustible material and her downstairs lighting circuit is less that 50mm into the building fabric.

As stated thing that are dangerous can be added as a C2. EFLI values I agree on, RCD protection in special locations and for outdoor equipment, fire resistant spotlights etc in some cases. But for everything to be tested as c2ed up to the current regs you having a laugh.... And your going to be smashing in a serious amount of earth rods from 2019 onwards

Firstly... Dude where have I said you C2 all those things? I reread my post and think its pretty clear I said you either C2 or C3 them as appropriate? maybe you got the wrong end of the stick?

Secondly... I would C3 all of your examples.

Thirdly... It looks like we might ALL be smashing in a serious amount of earth rods from 2019 onwards.

 

[davesparks]

you carry out an eicr in accordance with current version of bs7671, it's as simple as that.

You cannot code something purely on the basis that if no longer complies with the current version. a good example of this is the old wiring colours, it does not comply now but it warrants no code.

Anything which is immediately dangerous, potentially dangerous or an improvement can be recommended for safety gets the appropriate code.

Yes this does lead to a situation where a job done yesterday may be coded as improvement recommended tomorrow, but there has to a be a time when the change occurs, that is the nature of progress.