Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 33 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2643 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Landlord electrical inspections from July!

whjohnson
Dear IET & HMG,

Please could you get your acts togother and co-ordinate your efforts in order that they correspond a little more with the Real World please?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_UN84w8brk

  • 0
    John Peckham:

    Chris


    I assume that you are being provocative to stimulate debate? Whilst I am pleased to hear that you and Mrs P have previously returned from a holiday in France safely that cannot be the basis for substituting this experience for the requirements of BS 7671!


    Pot calling kettle ... pot calling kettle ...


    Well now, what code would others have given?


    I mention France only 'cos the last two hotels in which we stayed had sockets in the bathrooms - by the wash hand basins rather than the bath.


  • 0
    John Peckham:

    Wally


     Can I assume you do not have a complete set of those qualifications?


    I'm not sure what your point is. I don't currently do EICRs and have no intention to start. That doesn't affect whether my comments on the current legal situation are true or not.


  • 0
    I am sympathetic to the view which states that if the installation fully complied with regulations at the time, and still do - that is, it is in good condition - then I would deem it to be safe for continued use despite the lack of the fulfillment of any of today's requirements.

    The inspection is carried out for the purpose of investigating whether or not this is the case, and not for the purpose of deliberately failing a perfectly safe installation simply because it lacks RCD protection or the like which is required by the regulations of today.


    "Needs Improvement" would be my only comment.


    If the zealous rivet-counting jobsworth nutcases are let loose on this, we'll end up ripping stuff out which is only a year or so old. At a time when our leaders and highly paid lobby groups are urging us to 'go green' how wasteful is that?
  • 0
    I am sympathetic to the view which states that if the installation fully complied with regulations at the time, and still do - that is, it is in good condition - then I would deem it to be safe for continued use despite the lack of the fulfillment of any of today's requirements.

    So logically you'd pass as safe an installation that complied with the 1st Ed?


    I think the point is that what society considers "safe" changes with time - if we're asked today the question: is this installation safe? doesn't it need to be answered considering today's definition of safe, not yesterday's, or last century's (or the century before that).

     
    1.Using a public utility water pipe as a means of earthing? Compliant in 13th Edition.

    2. No RCD protection for a 230V socket that could supply portable equipment outside? Compliant 14th Edition.

    3. A bedroom with a show cubical with a 230V socket 2.5m from the shower? Compliant with the 15th edition.

    4. A surface run wiring system on a ceiling without metalic support? Compliant with the 16th Edition.

    5. An electric vehicle charging point connected to a PME earthing system without one of the special provisions for neutral. Compliant with 17th Edition.

    Just off the top of my head (using my usual yardstick of zero faults to danger=C1, one fault to danger=C2, two faults to danger (where the current regs would offer protection)=C3)


    1. Presuming the pipe is still currently offering an adequate Earth, then presuming it's a typical domestic like installation where overall leakage currents could reasonably expected to exceed 10mA then I suggest only one "fault" to danger (i.e. loss of pipework continuity) - so I'd say a C2. (If earth leakage would be unlikely to exceed 10mA then we'd need two faults to danger (loss of pipework continuity and a L-PE fault) so then a C3 might be appropriate.)


    2. C2 for me (danger from single fault reasonably likely - e.g. hedge trimmer cutting through 2-core flex or long leads resulting in Zs being too high for 0.4s disconnection).


    3. Tricky. Would probably depends on the exact layout and situation - but probably less chance of an appliance being taken into a shower cubicle than falling into a bath, so I'd probably start with thoughts of a C3.


    4. Probably C2 if over a likely fire escape route, C3 otherwise.


    5. Tricky again - but on the basis that an open PEN although a single fault in the strict sense should be as rare as a double fault, gut feel is probably a C3.


       - Andy.
  • 0
    However good the intent, these inspections will end up being done by the lowest bidder.


    Landlords and agents will use them merely as a buck-passing necessary piece of paper from someone willing to accept responsibility while hoping nothing goes wrong.


    Conscientious contractors will not be satisfactorily remunerated for the true time a competent inspection would take.
  • 0
    Andy


    Your item 4. Why a C2 only for an "escape route" . You might want to have a look what it says on Page 5 of the 18th Edition. 2 of the fire fighters killed were killed by entanglement in a bedroom. Also have a look at the BS 7671 definition in Part 2 of an "Escape Route". I like my ex senior fire officer, now fire risk assessor, definition myself, "laying on your bed or chopping tomatoes in your kitchen to the final exit door from the premises".
  • 0
    John Peckham:

    Andy


    Your item 4. Why a C2 only for an "escape route" . You might want to have a look what it says on Page 5 of the 18th Edition. 2 of the fire fighters killed were killed by entanglement in a bedroom. Also have a look at the BS 7671 definition in Part 2 of an "Escape Route". I like my ex senior fire officer, now fire risk assessor, definition myself, "laying on your bed or chopping tomatoes in your kitchen to the final exit door from the premises".


    If I may butt in ...


    I was hinting at that definition of an escape route in my posting. If my workshop is on fire and I'm still in it, I will have been overcome by smoke; or I have blown something up with me alongside it. I don't see how the cables on the ceiling could entangle anybody. In a sense, I don't think that they could collapse prematurely, because the term in that context is meaningless.


    Bear in mind that most private houses don't have escape routes, but if I'm asleep and the fire alarm goes off, it is vital that any surface mounted cables on the ceiling between me and an outside door don't collapse until I am out of the building. Now the term "prematurely" has meaning.


    Any road, at least now we have a range of opinion. ?


  • 0
    In reality you are not going to escape along a route that has molten plastic dripping from the ceiling, it is not about the dangling cables and molten plastic stopping people escaping, it is about fully suited up fire officers not getting entangled on the way in.


    Any cable that may collapse in a fire and create the risk of entanglement has to be coded, but not the bit of cable and trunking inside the airing cupboard which it is impossible for anyone to physically get into.
  • 0
    I had to skip parts of the video, if they had been in that flat any longer they would be deemed to be tenants themselves, mind you that would at least class them as residents of the same household making it acceptable to encroach on each others personal space during these times of social distancing.


    It wasn't exactly an exercise of getting to the point, roll on the day Bod starts making YouTube videos, there won't be any fannying about in those!
  • 0
    Your item 4. Why a C2 only for an "escape route"

    I was thinking of the BS 7671 idea of an escape route - i.e. anywhere people might have to move through when leaving during a fire (rather than only applying to a corridor with running-man symbols over it) - my thinking being that there are many areas where a cable fall from a ceiling would be less of an issue - e.g. it's within a cupboard or above built-in furniture or such that the cable would fall close and parallel to a wall that has no doorways - situations where it's unlikely to directly entangle anyone - for such cases a C3, or possibly even no code at all, feels more appropriate to me.


       - Andy.

Community Rules & Guidelines