Inspection & testing pass/fail

[Octopus]

I just wanna to know other people opinion and discuss about it cause to me it is a bit of a grey area where electricians have their own right to make a last decision when our signatures in use and we have to cover our asses.

There are members on here, masquerading as sparks but are actually DIYer's looking to us to "arm" them with information so they can pick a fight with their sparkies!

 

[LPM]

There are members on here, masquerading as sparks but are actually DIYer's looking to us to "arm" them with information so they can pick a fight with their sparkies!

Possibly cause I am new here so don't know much about this forum but it looks nice to have a chat with other sparks, it also good as it gives you some clue what others do in same situation.

 

[Octopus]

Possibly cause I am new here so don't know much about this forum but it looks nice to have a chat with other sparks, it also good as it gives you some clue what others do in same situation.

Cool matey.

What type of sparky are you and are you a scheme member?

 

[LPM]

Nic qs

 

[Rampantchilli]

Re: Inspection & testing pass/fail

We are not forcing people to do any remidials cause EICR doesn't state that client must do any work as it is their money and they decide what to do with them as long as they know that this is wrong and you r not covering it with your signature. The other point is that we r not creating rules we just following them. Then you can basically buy cheaper stuff and do installation based on 15th edition and say EIC that they can not force you to buy more expensive materials to make installation safe like it is i.e. 17th ed because 15th edition is safe enough for continuous use.

Doesn't work like that, if you are installing stuff then THAT must comply with 17th, there isn't a get out of jail free card, if customer won't pay correct price, then you don't do the job

- - - Updated - - -

We are not forcing people to do any remidials cause EICR doesn't state that client must do any work as it is their money and they decide what to do with them as long as they know that this is wrong and you r not covering it with your signature. The other point is that we r not creating rules we just following them. Then you can basically buy cheaper stuff and do installation based on 15th edition and say EIC that they can not force you to buy more expensive materials to make installation safe like it is i.e. 17th ed because 15th edition is safe enough for continuous use.

Doesn't work like that, if you are installing stuff then THAT must comply with 17th, there isn't a get out of jail free card, if customer won't pay correct price, then you don't do the job

 

[Sintra]

Yes but basically by giving satisfactory cert just to help people avoid remidials is not right, also you put your signature on it.

I never said it is done to avoid remedials. What I said is if the installation complies to the version of the regs to which it installed and is fit for continued service I will put my signature to it.

 

[Risteard]

Re: Inspection & testing pass/fail

Observations should not be made where (in the Inspector's opinion) the non-compliance does not give rise to danger. So not everything which is non-compliant with BS 7671:2008 (2011) necessarily needs to be mentioned in the Report.

you would code non compliance with 17th as a C3, which is a satisfactory as long as there are no immediate or potential dangers.

- - - Updated - - -

beaten by the troll. :81:

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Ok so simple question, why then 17th edition was released if 16th was safe enough ? Also how could you give satisfactory cert if its non compliance with existing 7671. I would appreciate to make a note that general/overall condition is in good order but would still issue unsatisfactory cert.

Because things get safer and better alledgedly. I assume you are giving an EICR not an Installation certificate. You cant issue an Installation certificate if it doesn't comply with the latest regs, because you are signing to say that it does.

With an EICR you are signing to say that it is safe (or not) for continued use, and it doesn't matter which edition of the regs it was installed to, if it was OK then, and no faults are evident now, then it is still OK. The regs are not retrospective, but with the new EICR you have to code non compliance with the current regs as C3, as you are recommending improvement, recommending being the operative word, you cant force change on them.

Cheers............Howard