Certainly from an employer's perspective, or indeed perhaps a landlord's, risk assessments have to be reviewed when things change. Risk assessments have to take into account technological progress and changes in standards.


In many ways, consumer protection goes the same way, and ultimately the duty of care a property owner has to those who might be injured in their property.


What a court, and society, finds acceptable does change over time.

C2 as the socket could be reasonably expected to be used for outside use, hardly a new regulation. I personally don’t think it’s worth taking the risk coding C3 as it would be hard to defend should an accident occur.

The concealed cables part is more difficult, I would go for C3 generally but some suggest C2 (NAPIT) perhaps they hang more pictures than others.

The requirement for RCD protection didn’t go from nothing to everything in one go, there was a gradual change driven by regs and guidance to contractors, mainly from the NICEIC.


Perhaps someone would like to add dates:

• No RCD protection required for any sockets.

• RCD protection required for sockets likely to be used outdoors, so the developers started fitting a socket with a built in RCD in the back of the garage or similar.

• All ground floor sockets deemed likely to be used to supply outdoor equipment, so the ground floor socket ring has a RCBO.

• All sockets require RCD protection.

In many cases the cooker circuit with a single socket has slipped through the net and still does not have RCD protection. In rented homes the landlords will generally do the bare minimum amount of upgrading, so anything coded C3 will still be exactly the same in five years time as it is now. There’s no reason to use an EICR to apply unnecessary  pressure on a landlord to upgrade an installation, but not spending any money on an installation that is over thirty years old is hardly the act of a professional landlord.


There is actually a high probability of the cooker socket being used for outdoor equipment if any work is done in a home, because if the builders, kitchen fitters, electrician, etc turn the socket circuit off whilst work is carried out the cooker switch socket will be used for the equipment they are using outdoors, an occurrence I see regularly.


So is the coding for any socket without RCD protection C2 unless it is in a flat on the first floor or above?


Andy Betteridge

davezawadi:

Hm, this is getting difficult because it is being suggested that a change in the regulations in a fairly minor way makes an installation go from satisfactory to unsatisfactory. In the same way we could say that every installation now needs a new CU. If the regulations can wield such power then the people making them need to be accountable for the huge cost, and need to provide evidence of increased safety of a significant nature, such as guaranteeing a reduction of deaths from electric shock or fires by 10% immediately, not just a bit of hand waving and a general statement of "increased safety". It seems we are in a bad place when "back covering" is more important than good regulation. Ok I could change the cooker switch / socket for £50 quid, but that is not the point. I could fit a 30mA RCD to the whole installation but fall foul of those who would say this is unsafe because a trip removes all the lights. I could fit an RCBO to the cooker circuit, but because the oven element is old it trips when the oven is hot. Where does this retrospective chain end, because I think that it does not. I repeat my remarks about speed limits above, is this really where you want to be? I shall stick with C3 and a note of what to do for safety. If it is ignored this is not my problem and it would be very difficult to prove that it was, unless the customer could not read, and then they could not pay me by cheque (nothing else accepted!).

I completely agree with all of the above ?


As this thread seems to be as a continuation of an earlier one regarding proposed new rental laws, I can only assume that some have now concluded that the draft text of the proposals in some way mandate that existing domestic dwellings, in general, must be regularised to current standards. Therefore, they feel obliged to apply BS7671 to the electrical installation as if it was new work or if they were installing new work. That approach is wrong, if you are applying in-service periodic inspection as prescribed by BS7671. If you are of the opinion that the approach is in fact, correct and is what is needed, then there should be a whole new approach for in-service "MOTing" of dwellings, separate to BS7671 requirements of periodic inspection.


This back door "regularisation" is not a new thing. Guidance from registration bodies, such as NICEIC, have applied this forced upgrading on their contractors since the late 1980's. This scheme was voluntary. In general, now,  membership of all schemes is, to all intent and purposes, mandatory, on a commercial level, that is , for reward.


In the early days, this "regularisation" would be in new work. So if you were brave enough to show, for example, a new circuit  added to an existing installation, you would be assessed as if you were responsible for the initial verification and selection and erection of the whole Installation. You would then fail your assessment, until all the upgrading that the NICEIC Inspector deemed necessary, is carried out by you at your cost. To give one example of many from direct experience;  simple one circuit added to an existing DB in a commercial premises that happens to have an existing full Fire Alarm system with panel, heads, sounders and door closer's. The works are completed [ a single new circuit unrelated to fire alarm] and EIC issued. From a Contractors view, the error is showing this type of job for assessment! In this particular instance the Inspector is more interested in all the existing installation, in particular the Fire Alarm. As there are no records for the existing installation, true then and, equally, now, you are deemed guilty until proven innocent of all the ills of the Installation, regardless of of what you put in description of works in your EIC. You are deemed guilty by dint of your bit of paper [the EIC] being the only thing available, so guilty by circumstantial evidence. You are ordered to upgrade the fire Alarm supply, or a fail. You argue your case to wiring regs [pre BS7671], but that is a rag to a bull. Your are then subjected to a revisit by the "Regional Engineer" whereby all their " recommendations" are expected to have been rectified.  Think being busted by the Cops on trumped up charges and then having to deal with a QC with everything stacked against you. What is stacked against you, quite simply, is cost and the ability to then earn a living by continuing trading. You are faced with increasing costs of revisits and, ultimately, removal from the roll or take your penance. At the end of this costly process you simply ask how this can be avoided in the future, the reply is " only install whole, new installations".


My point is that application standards are driven by registration schemes, not BS7671 [ or predecessor] and they are mostly in error.


I have always fully supported the correct application of RCD provision, but there is an inherent lunacy in the way registration schemes want this to be applied. An example of from early 1990's [ 1992 I think ] that I am sure many electrical contractors still trading can relate to. Two building sites of new build 2/3 bed homes. Both the same large national builder, with same general remit [ I recall this simply being outline, so to "wiring regs/building regs, a plan of points of use on a drawing "]. These were simple 2 or 3 circuits [ a " 4 way DB with 30mA RCD" was in this remit ]. These sites are next door to each other, each about 50 houses,. Identical really in every aspect, except one was being done by an NICEIC Approved Contractor, the other by an ECA Registered Contractor. The ECA Contractor was a devolved arm of the local electricity board. As was common at that time, when 30mA RCD protection for socket outlets "that could be used for outside" was being pushed by the schemes, simple domestic new builds and re-wires were given a 30mA RCD main switch. So all circuits. The ECA Contractor did this as usual. No problems, ECA happy, builder happy. No so the NICEIC. They forced the then , new fangled , "split consumer units" on the NICEIC Contractor [us] . So you fit these new boards with 30mA DP RCD on half the circuits, the sockets only. The lighting does not have 30mA RCD protection. This is reasoned on the  spurious claim of " avoiding inconvenience in the event of a fault". A fault is a fault and could be dangerous. In the first instance an RCD prevents danger. Remove the fault, the RCD is doing its job, or put up with the inconvenience. Assuming both sites are as original, fast forward to now, which site of houses is the safer installation? One  site of houses has been left with no RCD on lights, buried cables or bathroom circuits.


You could not really make this up. Simply standards are driven by registration schemes, not national wiring standards.


This regularisation or forced upgrading is later extended to Periodic Inspections and is pretty much where we are now.


As far as I can tell there was never any specific text in BS7671 specifically mandating RCD on any "socket that could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outside". That particular wording is the construct of registration bodies. It has always been along the lines of "supplies to portable equipment outdoors". As has been noted by others, there is differing wording and sections from 16th Edition 2001 [471-16-01 ] to the present 18th [ 411.33 ]. The former former was just headed and related to "supplies for portable equipment out doors". The latter differentiates  between socket outlets [ i ] and mobile equipment [ii]. Now an exception, under defined conditions, can be applied to [i] . That seems to suggest that [ ii ] , mobile equipment , is by far the more risky, as there is no exception. So I would not conclude that 411.3.3 mandates, by default, that every <=32 amp socket in the house readily accessible, without 30mA RCD protection, is a C2 when subjected to a BS7671 EICR.


I agree that any harm that may occur from there being no RCD should be subjected to the test of  "reasonably foreseeable". But that is what the Report is there for. If it is "recommend improve" you have foreseen the possibility of a chain of events that could lead to "potentially dangerous". But that is all it is, a set of circumstances all depending on context. Think, the events needed in this chain :  an extension lead, the presence of portable equipment, the person/user [ owner occupier or tenant ]. If the non RCD supply to portable equipment outside is crystallised, that is, the stuff is all there with no RCD protection, that is foreseeable and obviously a C2.  Advice in a Report can be diluted when there is a third party involved. So, in the instance where it is a Tenant then you have to assume the Tenant will not be aware of the C3 ["recommend improve" advice on what is foreseeable"] and so you would have no option but for a C2. You would qualify this observation code with reference to the installation being used by persons unknown [ persons that are not going to see the Report].


Lets take this OP scenario and apply it to an EICR for the purposes of a house sale, the client being the proposed purchaser. The proposed purchaser tells you they will be the occupier. They do not intend to rent it out afterwards, that has already been instructed to you.The vast majority of sockets are RCD protected, except the cooker control panel [ with 13 amp outlet in wall switch]. The Client will read your Report. You code the cooker socket as C3. That is correct and you have not exposed your liability . However, if you have erroneously coded this C2 and it is the only item that "fails" the installation, you can be open for a claim of loss by one or more parties for aborting a costly house transaction at the 11th hour. People could have lost their deposit and may still have to pay transaction fees to Agents and Solicitors.




 

The rental laws lack clarity, the government doesn’t actually seem to say if an EICR with C3 observations on it is acceptable or not.


If there are EICRs with issues coded C3 will there have to be a lot of belated improvements and upgrades to electrical installation later this year?


Andy Betteridge

Sparkingchip:

The rental laws lack clarity, the government doesn’t actually seem to say if an EICR with C3 observations on it is acceptable or not.


If there are EICRs with issues coded C3 will there have to be a lot of belated improvements and upgrades to electrical installation later this year?


Andy Betteridge 

That is not the case. The draft says

(4) Where a report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the report requires the private landlord to undertake further investigative or remedial work, the private landlord must ensure that further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person

That is clearly codes FI, C1 or C2, see section F of model form of EICR in BS7671.


C3 is what it is. Advice for consideration. The draft does not state, in section 4 above, anything relating to "recommend improve".  All references in the draft , such as, " to standard" or "to BS7671" are referencing to the process of periodic reporting or to the expected standard of remedial action. That is perfectly normal. I can appreciate it may be a bit of a leap for those used to providing oven ready satisfactory EICRs, but this legislation does not mandate retrospective upgrading of the whole installation to the 18th . Reference to 18th is simply where we are.

Unless there is an official government approved list of of codes or guidance there will always be conflicts of opinion.


So if challenged why you gave a code 3 for a potential issue after there has been a serious injury as a result of using the installation rather than a code 2, will it be acceptable to reply that you recommend improvement, but the person receiving the report chose to ignore your recommendation and that you made your recommendation based on the fact that at the time of of installation the issue you were coding actually complied with the regulations current of that time?


Can anything that complied with the regulations at the time of installation ever be a code 2?


 Andy Betteridge