new reqs

[Farmelectrics]

has anyone pre ordered the new books yet and weres the cheapest place to get them was tempted to order mine on amazon £130 for the reqs,on site guide, gn3 your thoughts chaps

 

[David M]

It is perfectly clear, and always has been. How could you install or verify an installation to a different Standard than that to which it has been designed?

I agree, I should have made my point clearer. You would obviously verify the installation based on which ever regs it was designed to. But that's the crux of it, if I designed an installation to the now current regs and then installed it to those regs after 1st of July then verified it based on those regs, someone could come along do a periodic and decide it is non compliant with the current regs and should have been verified to the regs current to the completion date of the installation. Obviously if they had access to the original EIC and had an ounce of brain, then it would become quite clear what has occurred. I'm not in disagreement I'm just pointing out that some jobs worth could be a bit picky over it.
Personally if I find an installation to be safe after inspection, harping on about a few misnomers is ridiculous and more of a way to scam money out of poor folk.

I've had a few debates over the years with assessors from the NICEIC. One assessor even marked me down as non compliant over an insignificant misnomer. Which resulted in lots of emails and phone calls between myself and the NICEIC office. As soon as I threatened to leave the scam..scheme they soon turned it around. Hmmmm.... worried about the loss of a few bucks...!

 

[Risteard]

Plastic CU, no code on the next EICR as complied at the time of installation.

Cables in escape routes, no code as complied at the time of installation.

The regulations are not retrospective.

They aren't retrospective, but it is completely irrelevant whether something complied at the time of installation. You can't say that something is less dangerous if it complied before but more dangerous if it didn't. The danger - perceived or otherwise - would be exactly the same.

 

[Risteard]

I wouldn't put it as a C3 personally unless someone comes up with a good reason why it should be.

RCD protection only becomes necessary when you work on/alter the circuit.

Because BS 7671 states that it must be given at least a C3 recommendation.

 

[Risteard]

"CONDITION REPORT INSPECTION SCHEDULE GUIDANCE FOR THE INSPECTOR 1. Section 1.0. Where inadequacies in the distributor’s equipment are encountered the inspector should advise the person ordering the work to inform the appropriate authority.

"2. Older installations designed prior to BS 7671:2008 may not have been provided with RCDs for additional protection. The absence of such protection should as a minimum be given a code C3 classification (item 5.12). "

 

[davesparks]

I personally would C3 those items. Not the cables colours though unless a harmonization label was not installed.

They do not warrant a C3 code, item 1 in the below image explains all.



Having one word wrong on a label or solid green sleeving are not in any way dangerous or able to give rise to danger.

But most old installations won't have a new colours label unless they contain both wiring colours.

 

[Guest125]

They do not warrant a C3 code, item 1 in the below image explains all.

View attachment 27379View attachment 27379

Having one word wrong on a label or solid green sleeving are not in any way dangerous or able to give rise to danger.

But most old installations won't have a new colours label unless they contain both wiring colours.

Fair comment with evidence. I will still include them in our reports but goong forward probably not code them. You cannot be wrong if you include it but you could be seen as wrong if you do not.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Not aware that Network Rail require contractors to be registered with the NICEIC.
The fact that I'm not registered with the NICEIC, has not prevented me from working at various sites around London.
It appears that the quote that keeps getting copied and pasted is from one of the schemes, not from the IET. As such I would not place any value on the information.
Generally, I would apply a code C3, for instances where an installation complied at the time of it's design/construction, but does not comply with the current requirements.
For instance: cables concealed in walls without an acceptable method of additional protection, socket-outlets intended for general use by ordinary persons, circuits of a location containing a bath or shower, not provided with RCD protection, time delayed RCDs set to 5s, etc.
With instances where conductors have not been correctly identified, such as switch lines, where earth sleeving has been omitted or a lable indicating two colours of wiring are present, I would just rectify, and not bother applying a code.

 

[Guest125]

Not aware that Network Rail require contractors to be registered with the NICEIC.
The fact that I'm not registered with the NICEIC, has not prevented me from working at various sites around London.
It appears that the quote that keeps getting copied and pasted is from one of the schemes, not from the IET. As such I would not place any value on the information.
Generally, I would apply a code C3, for instances where an installation complied at the time of it's design/construction, but does not comply with the current requirements.
For instance: cables concealed in walls without an acceptable method of additional protection, socket-outlets intended for general use by ordinary persons, circuits of a location containing a bath or shower, not provided with RCD protection, time delayed RCDs set to 5s, etc.
With instances where conductors have not been correctly identified, such as switch lines, where earth sleeving has been omitted or a lable indicating two colours of wiring are present, I would just rectify, and not bother applying a code.

At risk of going off a bit. To gain RISQS (formally Link-Up) approval you will certainly require NICEIC membership. We have both.

I would also do exactly as you said above. Anything that did comply that now does not I would C3. Unless of course it was a little more serious as I am sure wevall would too. There would be no way in reality to verify when the installation was designed or installed.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have never been registered with the NICEIC, and the last time I worked for Network Rail was at Paddington in January/February of this year.
Perhaps things have changed?

 

[Guest125]

I have never been registered with the NICEIC, and the last time I worked for Network Rail was at Paddington in January/February of this year.
Perhaps things have changed?

What is your Link-up / RISQS membership number?

 

[TJ Anderson]

Is this a loaded question? Yes!!

mmm.... yeah, maybe it was a little bit..

 

[Engineer54]

At risk of going off a bit. To gain RISQS (formally Link-Up) approval you will certainly require NICEIC membership. We have both.

What does the RISQS initials stand for??

Sounds like someone (or Organization) has been well and truly hooked by all the hype the NICEIC spurts out!! lol!!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

They just love acronyms.
For the underground you need a LUCAS card, for Network Rail a PTS card.
Then there's the SPIC card, and a whole host of others

 

[Engineer54]

They just love acronyms.
For the underground you need a LUCAS card, for Network Rail a PTS card.
Then there's the SPIC card, and a whole host of others

None of which mean anything to me. But if what UKESRail has stated is correct, then they seem to be relying on NICEIC membership to authenticate this ''RISQS'' card and maybe the others you mention here. I can't think of a worse move myself, far better to conduct your own assessment, if you're going to issue a card as a restrictive approval requirement!!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

In order to obtain any of the cards I have mentioned, you first have to have an ECS/CSCS skill card.
As I've already stated, I am not, and never have been registered with the NICEIC.