Good to see our MPs are still hard at work

Discussion in 'Electricians' Talk' started by Comlec, Mar 18, 2020.

  1. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    Are you talking about the >300mm rule from a sink?
     
  2. ajohn

    ajohn Well-Known Member

    Yes
     
  3. MGW

    MGW Well-Known Member

    In the early regulations it was more like the guides are now, and there were some items where they went OTT, I remember earthing of all metal, and then it was realised to get a shock current needs to flow, so like the birds on power lines, some times better not to have things earthed, however the 17th was very careful to say in bathrooms you could only stop earthing where RCD's were used, and you could not mix and match.

    With a MOT if the garage finds 4 faults, and you take the car and have the 4 faults fixed, the garage only retests the faults found, it does not look for more. And the MOT is issued showing pass, you don't have a amendment to MOT saying parts failed now pass. You have a whole document saying pass.

    It would seem we now will need the same, you will need a single document saying pass or other word meaning the same, as with a MOT a separate document may say recommended a new tyre is fitted front left, but the main document taken to post office to get new tax simply says pass.

    This is not what is done with an EICR, a C3 is often considered as satisfactory, or at least no hurry, and I would not fail on this temp.jpg but the best practice guide says I should, I would say yes it is bad, and I should maybe unplug the items, but for a landlords report we should not see any Code C3‘Improvement recommended’. Code FI‘Further investigation required’ either it is C1 or C2 i.e. unsatisfactory or it is satisfactory, and Code C3‘Improvement recommended’ should be on a separate document which does not need submitting to anyone other than owner, and Code FI‘Further investigation required’ means not complete, so also should not appear, be it unsatisfactory or satisfactory or fail and pass, the document submitted to tenant or local authority needs to be simple.

    The EICR was designed to tell the owner the condition of the property it was never designed to be a MOT, it was more like taking a car for a service.
     
  4. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    My understanding, is that FI should only be used if you suspect it could lead to either a C1 or C2.
    To be honest, I’m not sure what a C3 is for any more.
     
  5. Comlec

    Comlec Well-Known Member

    There is big difference between an MOT and a service. An MOT tester does not modify the car in any way, rather preforms a series of specific inspections and tests(emissions and brakes). If it fails you only have a 7 days to get the faults fixed and submit for a retest otherwise it is a full retest on presentation.
     
  6. Comlec

    Comlec Well-Known Member

    From NAPIT Codebreakers
    upload_2020-3-23_18-44-47.png
     

    Attached Files:

  7. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    My problem with code C3, is This:
    16th Edition:
    744-01-02
    Any damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions, and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations which may give rise to danger, together with any limitations of the inspection and testing shall be recorded.

    17th Edition:
    634.2
    Any damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, together with any significant limitations of the inspection and testing, including their reasons, shall be recorded.

    18th Edition:
    651.4
    Details of any damage, deterioration, defects or dangerous conditions shall be recorded in a report.
    653.2 The Report shall include the following:
    - details of those parts of the installation that have been inspected and tested
    - any limitations of the inspection and testing
    - any damage, deterioration, defects or dangerous conditions
    - any non-compliance with the requirements of BS 7671 which may give rise to danger
    - schedules of inspection as appropriate to those detailed in Section 642
    - schedules of results of the appropriate tests detailed in Section 643.

    In all 3 of these editions (and their amendments) there is no where to be found a requirement to record any non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations/BS7671 which may not give rise to danger.

    In the 16th Edition, we were required to record any damage, deterioration and defects, irrespective of whether they were dangerous or not. The codes we would apply were 1,2 or 4 (if it was not dangerous).
    Code 3 was for where further investigation was required.

    In the 17th it was changed so that we would only record any damage, deterioration and defects, if they may give rise to danger.
    The codes started off the same as in the 16th, but were changed to C1, C2 and C3.
    C3 being the code for something that was not dangerous?
    Why if we are only required to record dangerous conditions or instances which may give rise to danger, is there a code for something that is not dangerous?

    Now with the 18th, we have gone back to what was required in the 16th.
    We have to record any damage, deterioration and defects irrespective of whether they dangerous or not, and dangerous conditions and any non-compliance which may give rise to danger.

    Again there is no requirement to record any non-compliance, unless it may give rise to danger.
     
  8. ajohn

    ajohn Well-Known Member

    Which version of BS7671 ? They are not retrospective. Take me with my wylex cu or some where that needs new circuits and has it done via spurs. I know of a commercial premisses that went in that direction and it was notified. The new spurs did comply.

    Any limitations - there probably always will be some as it's not really feasible to fully inspect every cable.

    Edit - The 18th entry could just be the 17th plus the test schedules.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
  9. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    The current version.
    If there’s a non-compliance with the current version which may give rise to danger, then you must record it and apply the appropriate code.

    No, the 18th is not the same as the 17th.
    The 18th (and the 16th) requires you to record any damage, deterioration or defects, whether they pose a danger or not.
    The 17th only required us to record them, if they may present a danger.
     
  10. ajohn

    ajohn Well-Known Member

    634.2 Any damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions ... ends with recorded. I was just point out that both say the same thing in a different way. It's a list
     
  11. spinlondon

    spinlondon Well-Known Member

    No, it’s not quite the same.
    The 17th edition says:
    Any damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the Regulations (comma) which may give rise to danger.
    So the words: which may give rise to danger apply to all of the list in front of the comma.
    Whereas in the 16th there is no comma after Regulations which means the phrase “and non-compliance with the Regulations which may give rise to danger” is just another item on the list.

    The 18th has 2 Regulations to say the same thing, to my mind 651.4 is superfluous.
    653.2 lists what is in 651.4 and then in another line says: “any non-compliance with the Regulations which may give rise to danger”.

    I did point out to the IET back in 2007 when the draft for the 17th was produced, that moving the comma from after conditions to after Regulations changed the meaning of the Regulation (wasn’t sure if this was a Typo, or intentional).
    I pointed out that the Regulation was now saying that we should record: dangerous conditions, which may give rise to danger, which I thought was rather non-sensical.
    Seems it took them 10 years to address the matter.

    That all aside, the fact remains.
    We are only required to record any non-compliance with the Regulations which may give rise to danger.
    There is no requirement to record any non-compliance with the Regulations which may not give rise to danger.
    This begs the question: What is the code C3 good for?
     

Share This Page