What work needs to be done when working on an old installation.

Discussion in 'Electricians' Talk' started by GavRob, May 15, 2018.

  1. Coloumb

    Coloumb Well-Known Member

    Well this is @Risteard world, not the real world. On the voltium web site there is a mention from smashy and nicey about how you don't actually need a s/f on meter tails > 3m. Don't stop @Risteard thinking you still need one. The joke is, he is actually a member of the smashy and nicey club too.
    seneca likes this.
  2. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Well-Known Member

    GavRob this may help https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/mediafile/100423440/Best-Practice-Guide-1-Issue-3-.pdf

    Kind regards

    @Risteard, judging by your comment you may like to read it as well. Or do you not trust these people either?
  3. Coloumb

    Coloumb Well-Known Member

    It would be funny except for the fact that he has probably lined his back pocket on the b/s he has peddled out to his customers, charging for work that doesn't need to be done.
  4. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Well-Known Member

    I have to be careful @Coloumb as I have been told off by SF for calling him names (numpty etc). The fact he was screaming allsorts at me, but there we go lol.

    I am so pleased he doesn't live near me.

    Kind regards mate
    Coloumb likes this.
  5. Risteard

    Risteard Well-Known Member

    No need to read it. I never stated that the Electrical Safety Council didn't promote that approach - I simply pointed out that this notice has no basis in BS7671. Show me a Regulation prescribing such a notice. You can't, because there isn't one.
  6. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Well-Known Member

    What notice?

    You reading things wrongly again.

    Shoulda gone to specsavers (other opticians are available).
  7. Risteard

    Risteard Well-Known Member

    The no cpc provision sticker which was mentioned earlier. Not me who's misreading. That notice was invented by the Electrical Safety Council and has no basis in BS7671. So stop making yourself look ridiculous by suggesting otherwise.
  8. Bob Rathbone

    Bob Rathbone Well-Known Member

    I am not familiar with the labelling for no CPC present, it seems a good idea if accompanied by the removal of all class 1 equipment from the circuit. That would be one of the caveats mentioned in my previous post. However, how can we be sure that as soon as we leave, the customer does not change them back, but I suppose we have the documentation. We should also remember that an insulation resistance test is a test for 'badness' and a pass result alone is insufficient to assure compliance. For me, any VIR (rubber) would need a very close inspection.
  9. MGW

    MGW Well-Known Member

    The not retrospectively rule has a sting in it's tail. The U-tube video looks at escape routes, there are a number of points made, one being the requirement has been there for some time, but was not repeated in BS7671, but as with everything to do with heath and safety if you know there is a problem then you must act on it.

    However the acting on it could be simply giving the occupant, and owner a written (must be written verbal is not good enough) report detailing non compliant items, we have done this since 1966 with no earth on lights in the form of a sticker on the consumer unit.

    However the other is BS7671 has NEVER allowed lights with no earth. Before 1992 there was no BS7671. So the question on the old PIR was does previous mean any edition of wiring regulations back to 1882, or does previous mean edition before current one?

    So until the 18th comes out was the previous edition 1991 (Sixteenth) or 2004 when BS7671:2004 replaced BS7671:1992? It is quite plain we can't allow knife switches which were permitted in 1882 so there has to be a limit to how far back.

    Since every 10 years following the regulations we should inspect and test domestic installations, some one with no earth to lights should have been informed at least 5 times, they have had 40 years to correct it, so can't afford it at the moment hardly holds water.

    However in real terms we know many light fittings and switches don't require an earth, so common sense says inform, but still do the work.

    The whole idea refusing to do work because it does not comply is flawed, to refuse to fit a CU with RCD protection because no earth on the lights is silly, because the work will make the installation safer, however refusing because the insulation resistance shows it is likely to trip every 5 minutes is another question.

    The point is we are professionals, and as such we should have the skill to make a judgement, for the DIY man to follow regulations blindly is OK, but for us we should be able to make up our own minds, is the installation any worse when we leave to when we arrived is the question I ask. Adding cable or sockets not RCD protected gives extra points where an accident can happen, so no we should not fit, swapping a not RCD protected CU for a RCD protected one, clearly making the installation safer so we should do it.

    Of course we have to switch off the supply to fit a CU, and once switched off, we should not energise unless safe, however neither should we leave a domestic property in an uninhabitable condition without finding alternative accommodation. (However it does not say who should pay for the alternative accommodation)

    So basic thing, don't make it any worse, give a written report of the faults, and use the professional judgement your advertising you have to decide what is within reason.
  10. GavRob

    GavRob New Member

  11. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Well-Known Member

    Pleased you found it useful.

    Kind regards

Share This Page