Advice on compliance with regulations for new kitchen and general wiring question

Hi all, a couple of things:

1. We are looking at getting a new kitchen - live in old house with COB/brick/thatch construction for info. The kitchen fitter sent his electrician a pic of the current Consumer Unit which is a Wylex split load RCD, plastic case and he wants to replace it. The house wiring contains a mix of old and new wiring colours, but I had an EICR about a year ago to comply with my insurance requirements and it passed OK. Is there any good reason for requiring a change? He said something, via the kitchen fitter, along the lines of conforming with current regulations back to the fuse box. Is this really the case as I didn't think so from what I've read? I'm a chartered engineer, but only work on low voltage stuff so need to check what the situation is with people familiar with the regulations working on this day in, day out before I start querying this if it goes ahead.

2. One of the circuits has a 10A MCB feeding a junction box just below the CU which feeds through to some outside lights (old halogens no longer working via armoured cable outside) and a 13a socket just below the CU. The location of socket means it's really just used to plug in the hoover. Where does this stand with regard to the regulations? i.e. a 10A limited MCB feeding a 13A socket and outside lights? For info, I am intending to replace the old halogens with newer LED types so hardly any current there, but looking more closely at it I came to notice this. 

Thanks, James.

Parents
  • The EICR may have been a satisfactory but the EICR was to the install edition in your case probably 16th or 17th edition and not 18th.

    It shouldn't have been. EICR should be based on the regs as they are at the time of the inspection regardless of what was in force at the time of original installation. Certainly people may refer back to older editions to evaluate the safety implications of non-conformities to the current edition, and non conformities that do not impact on safety wouldn't warrant a mention, but the base reference should always be the current edition.

       - Andy.

Reply
  • The EICR may have been a satisfactory but the EICR was to the install edition in your case probably 16th or 17th edition and not 18th.

    It shouldn't have been. EICR should be based on the regs as they are at the time of the inspection regardless of what was in force at the time of original installation. Certainly people may refer back to older editions to evaluate the safety implications of non-conformities to the current edition, and non conformities that do not impact on safety wouldn't warrant a mention, but the base reference should always be the current edition.

       - Andy.

Children
  • It shouldn't have been. EICR should be based on the regs as they are at the time of the inspection regardless of what was in force at the time of original installation.

    Surely the installation can be 'satisfactory' if it does not meet all of the requirements of BS 7671:2018+A2:2022?

  • Surely the installation can be 'satisfactory'

    Sorry, I realize now my reply was ambiguous. I meant to say the EICR shouldn't have been done to an earlier edition of the regs (rather than the EICR shouldn't have been satisfactory).

      - Andy.

  • Sorry, I realize now my reply was ambiguous. I meant to say the EICR shouldn't have been done to an earlier edition of the regs (rather than the EICR shouldn't have been satisfactory).

    Absolutely, as usual, pedantry from me, but important differentiation all the same.