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.

 

[davesparks]

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.

Yes if that is what the current regulations require, although i think that the situations you describe are more likely to be C3 than C2.

It doesn't matter whether it is 1 socket or 200, if they don't comply then they don't comply and must be coded accordingly.

 

[westward10]

The sockets comply, it is the level of circuit protection which makes so many to soil their pants

 

[MerlinGremlin]

It's Inspection and Test not Test and Inspect! Just saying.

 

[Devonchris]

Thanks for the response.

Whilst, on the face of it, there appears to be a lack of consensus, actually most seem to agree that C3 is appropriate for items not meeting current Regs.

I suppose it's a bit like taking a car for an MOT. There are certain safety standards that all cars must pass. However later models must have certain additional features fitted and working (seat belts, air bags etc.) Older models without these features will still pass but are not as safe.

With regards to which Regs you are testing to, I don't suppose it really matters. Some will see RCDs (for instance) as a bonus, others as a omission. If it's given a C3 with comments to that effect then it's the same outcome.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

As has been said already, the inspection should be conducted in accordance with the current Regulations.
What some people seem to forget, is that the current Regulations stipulate, that something which complied with the Regulations in force at the time of construction is not necessarily unsafe because it no longer complies.
People should also take note, that the current Regulations allow installations to be constructed to earlier versions if they were designed when those earlier versions were in force.
For example, the Athelete's village for the Olympics.
Construction completed end of March 2015, constructed to the 16th edition.