what code

[Risteard]

interesting debate I started it so ill end it code 3 is the winner lol

Remember that this is a risk transfer from the client to you. That is why I would not be happy with suggesting to the client that all was hunky dorey the way that it was.

Observations in a periodic inspection are at the sole discretion of the Inspector (so-called Best Practice Guides etc. cannot think for you, nor do they hold any basis in law), so by all means use a C3 observation against it if you feel that it is appropriate but I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I never said that I considered that to be particularly dangerous. I just stated that it is not relevant whether something was ever compliant or not - what is relevant is whether it is satisfactory to remain in service. That isn't the same thing.

It is relevant.
In the introduction in every edition is the statement:
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."
This effectively means that unless you can show that at the time of construction a particular instance did not comply with the edition in force at the time of design, or that there has been dangerous deterioration or damage, you cannot (if you wish to comply with BS 7617) report the particular instance as being either immediately or potentially unsafe.
To do so would effectively mean that your inspection was not carried out in accordance with the requirements of BS 7671.

 

[Hellmooth]

Well i disagree you are testing for continued safe use of the installation, so you would code lighting circuits with no rcd installed to 16th ed a c2.???

a C3 would be appropriate it's a recommendation

 

[Farmelectrics]

enough I said ha ha

 

[bigspark17]

I mean you just keep repeating yourself risteard! We know what youre trying to say but you are wrong and you cannot seem to accept that.! This is a forum were all here because we all care and want to do the work to best of our ability abd to share knowledge and experiences! How can something installed to regs work fine and safely for 20 yrs and one day you turn up and fail it because you prefer it done another way! We all would prefer to see rcd on showers and im sure we all do on our indtalls! But this instance you cannot give a c2 (unsatisfactory teport) it is not an accurate eicr END OF!!!

 

[Hellmooth]

Miaow!!!

 

[Blademan_98]

I have found this very interesting as I am taking my EAL periodic inspection test on Saturday
Cheers
B

 

[Simonslimline]

Out of interest, where do people stand on the changing oz Zs max values? For instance say you are carrying out an EICR and a final circuits Zs is not compliant with the new values but complies with the permited value it was installed to? c3?

 

[Lucien Nunes]

I don't do domestic and have never installed a shower, although I have examined inside a few of them. My own personal opinion is that certain units were never sufficiently protected without an RCD and that users were exposed to a greater risk of severe shock than I was comfortable with, even when additional protection by RCD was not mandatory. I would not have installed one without, and would not pass by the opportunity to encourage in the strongest terms the benefit of upgrading one with an RCD via an EICR.

In this situation, I would probably code it C3 but direct the reader to an explanation that the benefit of adding an RCD is very real in this particular case, as opposed to a mere act of achieving compliance on paper as it might be with a cable buried 45mm deep. If I could find any evidence of deterioration or likelihood of water ingress into the shower, even if the test results were good, I would consider a C2.

 

[Hellmooth]

Out of interest, where do people stand on the changing oz Zs max values? For instance say you are carrying out an EICR and a final circuits Zs is not compliant with the new values but complies with the permited value it was installed to? c3?

C2 as it doesn't comply with current regs.

 

[Hellmooth]

Or further investigation needed, but it is unsatisfactory in reality.

 

[Risteard]

This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

Ergo, it also doesn't necessarily mean that they are safe for continued use or don't require upgrading. That is implicit in the word "necessarily".

Nowhere is it stated that compliance with a previous Edition guarantees that it is safe, just that it might not be unsafe.

 

[Risteard]

But this instance you cannot give a c2 (unsatisfactory teport) it is not an accurate eicr END OF!!!

I most certainly can and there is nothing inaccurate about it. Your opinion is only an opinion. It doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes, the fact that any installation complied at the time of designe and construction is no guarantee that it is safe or even complies now.
However if there has been no deterioration, damage or other reason which would cause a danger, then there is no valid reason for considering an installation to be unsafe.
I should also point out that there is no time limit for constructing an installation following design.
I personally know of a number of installations completed in April 2014 which was designed to the 16th edition, some 6 years after the 17th was introduced.
According to your opinion, they were unsafe before they were even completed.

 

[Risteard]

According to your opinion, they were unsafe before they were even completed.

I didn't say that so don't pretend that I did. I said that just because it complied at the time of construction doesn't necessarily mean that it is safe by today's standards.

That doesn't mean that I said that it won't be safe - just that aspects MIGHT NOT be.

MIGHT NOT BE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DEFINITELY ISN'T (OR DEFINITELY IS).

Honestly, it's very simple English.

It depends on the specifics of the installation.