what to suggest when no circuits have rcd protection

[Risteard]

There are some things which may not have mattered years ago which may well warrant a Code2 now.

Don't forget fused neutrals were permitted at one time!

 

[westward10]

Don't forget fused neutrals were permitted at one time!

Spoilsport that was my ammo.

 

[bigspark17]

There are some things which may not have mattered years ago which may well warrant a Code2 now.

Give an example..

 

[westward10]

Give an example..

Risteard just did.
Or separating gas supplies from electrical systems by not earthing them (that is old).

 

[westward10]

Changes in ELFI values.
Tumbler style light switches where the cover can be unscrewed.

 

[bigspark17]

& you see these in all 16th edition installs do you? :/

 

[westward10]

& you see these in all 16th edition installs do you? :/

Eh?
FVODs

 

[bigspark17]

Eh?
FVODs

Ehh?? The op post was about what appears to be a 16th install not an install with no bonding or fused neutrals!

 

[Risteard]

Ehh?? The op post was about what appears to be a 16th install not an install with no bonding or fused neutrals!

But your post (to which we were responding) was not specifically about the 16th Edition.

Anyway, I did provide an example of something which was not explicitly stated until Amendment 3 which I would judge harshly due to the dangers we now know exist with it, i.e. wiring in escape routes not secured with so-called non-combustible supports.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Always amazes me.
People bang on about conducting EICRs to current Regulations, then just ignore those Regulations.
An installation which complied with the requirements at the time of design/construction is not necessarily unsafe and does not require upgrading.

Now I know people will say that 'not necessarily unsafe' could mean that the installation is unsafe.
Of course, any installation can be unsafe due to any number of reasons, which is why we are required to comment on any damage, deterioration, dangerous conditions or non-compliances which may present a danger.

What really makes me chuckle, is that in March 2014, I was helping to complete an installation to the 16th edition where construction had started after the introduction of the 17th edition.
According to some people's thinking, it failed before construction began.

 

[Risteard]

People bang on about conducting EICRs to current Regulations, then just ignore those Regulations.

Now I know people will say that 'not necessarily unsafe' could mean that the installation is unsafe.

So they're not ignoring the Regulations then. They are doing what they are supposed to do - assessing whether the particular non-compliance makes the installation unsafe or not.

Now I have mentioned an example of a Regulation which has only been stated explicitly in the 3rd Amendment to the 17th Edition RE: wiring systems in escape routes wired without fire resisting supports.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you believe that this risk which has clearly been associated with the deaths of several firefighters constitutes a danger or not? I have already laid my cards on the table and stated that I do consider it to give rise to danger should a fire occur.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes there is now a Regulation in respect of wiring in escape routes, wonderful.
Shame fire fighters don't restrict their activities to just escape routes when searching buildings for people to rescue.
This is not a new issue.
We have for as long as I can remember been required to comment on dangerous conditions.
My concern now is that now even less care will be taken in areas outside escape routes, and comments regarding unsafe wiring methods in such areas will be disregarded.

 

[westward10]

This is interesting, what is an escape route. I would argue nearly any part of the premises.

 

[Risteard]

We have for as long as I can remember been required to comment on dangerous conditions.

It would have to be non-compliant with BS7671 to comment upon though.

So essentially you are agreeing that new Regulations can result in a C2 classification on an EICR despite claiming earlier that they couldn't.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No, a dangerous condition does not have to be a non-compliance with BS7671.
A prime example being insufficient sockets, resulting in the use of extension leads and plug adaptors.
There was and still is a requirement to consider the effects of fire when choosing a wiring system and method of installation.
This new Regulation provides instructions on how to comply with the existing requirement.
Unfortunately it targets wiring in escape routes, not wiring elsewhere which is just as, if not more likely to present a danger.