Coding and regs in force at time of installation

As far as I am aware, initial verification is to the edition (with any amendements) which was current when the installation was designed. So, it could be a little out of date on completion.

If that were not the case, it could cause real problems with large developments, which may take a few years from start to finish.

Periodic I&T is different: it is to the edition which is current at the time of the inspection.

Its not even that clear , if it is a contract for something really big - think Heathrow airport or the Olympic 'village' that is likely to take long enough to  span several issues of many building standards. In that case the contracts will be to standards as they stood on some pre-agreed date named in the contract, which may even predate the job starting by months or years, - so BS12345 2020  or whatever. And that is the installers justification for the design choice in that case - the contracted set of rules include a date freeze.
It does of course mean that if it is inspected the day after hand-over it is ' not to current standards'  but that is the agreement, the alternative would be ambulatory requirements and nothing would ever finish. And of course changes between successive standards tend to be modest as the biggest matters of life and death were sorted in the early versions of standards.

Mike.

Sounds like a contract review is needed.

EG in 2020 type AC RCD were seen as OK but now only 5 years later we know that a Type A is the recommended and Type AC in most cases is depricated.  Thus the Contract for Mega projects which can span 5 to 10 years should include a review by an engineer at the 3/4 stage mark to review such things using their engineering judgement.  

This question keeps coming up with statements like, " it was safe at the time of installation so it must be safe now". That is nonsense and MAPJ1 uses the example of the open knife switch in the 1900s which is one of the examples I use with other examples from earlier editions. For a start how do you know it complied with a previous edition when it is highly likely it did not due to incompetence and dishonesty. Secondly the Wiring Regulations change due to requirements for improved electrical safety sometimes due to fatal accidents. Did you notice the changes due to the Grenfell Tower fire?

As for AFDDs in HRBs you need to consider the Building Safety Act and the Building Safety Regulations. 

If you do not own a current edition of IET Guidance Note 3, and do not read it and have a working knowledge of the contents in my view you should not be doing Initial Verification or Periodic Inspection and testing. If you do not hold a qualification in knowledge of the Wiring Regulations together with a Level 3 Qualification in inspection and testing you should not be doing it.

So now turn to section 3.1.2 on page 135 of GN3 which answers all your questions about earlier installations construct to a previous edition of  BS 7671 or the IEE Wiring Regulations and the coding of no compliant findings.

The contract is there to decide who's budget the subsequent modifications come from... [aka "not my budget"]

Usually no one has a contingency budget for such modifications due to mandatory standards updates..

What fun.

In practice, it gets built to contract, as if it does not, payment is withheld, and if it is, payment can be demanded.

It is however no more dangerous than if it had been completed sooner (i.e. at the contract date)

The fact the regs have changed is only relevant if the customer fancies  paying for a mid-programme contract up-lift. 

The decision has to be risk based, and for something like an AFDD, may well include inputs from other design authorities,  being things the electrician is not doing, like the fire risk assessment.

Mike.

The wording of 3.12 (i guess you mean) states: In all cases, the inspection should be carried out against the current edition of BS 7671. It is likely that there will be items that do not comply with that edition, but this does not necessarily mean that the installation is unsafe. If the inspector considers that an item, although not warranting code C1 or C2, requires improvement, it should be given code C3 on the EICR. If the item does not require improvement, it may be recorded as an observation but it does not warrant a classification code.

this seems to say a C3 requires improvement not improvement recommended.

John Peckham said:

This question keeps coming up with statements like, " it was safe at the time of installation so it must be safe now".

Assuming that the installation is in good condition (with no N-E faults), when does it become unsafe?

Take RCD protection. I do not know when it became mandatory, or even advised, but my installation at home circa 1982, so 15th Edn, addressed the risk of shock outdoors by having RCD sockets by the back door and in the conservatory, and RCBOs in the CU in the outbuildings. At some stage, RCD protection indoors became mandatory on socket circuits, and now on domestic lighting circuits.

So the gap between what was considered safe say, 50 years ago, and what is considered safe now has been steadily widening. However, as Note 2 to 651.2 says, that 50 year old installation is not necessarily unsafe, just less safe.

An ancient householder may say that he (or more likely, she) has lived in the house for over 50 years and never had a problem.

So for me, it is very much shades of grey and not black and white.

ETA: the Government's current consultation on road safety considers mandating a whole raft of safety devices in new vehicles. Many (most? all?) are currently available. So where is your cut-off? 20 year old car, 50 year old car, 100 year old car?

Newfutile said:

the inspection should be carried out against the current edition of BS 7671

That could lead to some confusion.  EG. BS7671 does not mention distance from kitchen sink for a plug and socket arrangemant

Newfutile said:

the inspection should be carried out against the current edition of BS 7671

That could lead to some confusion.  EG. BS7671 does not mention distance from kitchen sink for a plug and socket arrangemant

Sergio Fernandez said:

That could lead to some confusion.  EG. BS7671 does not mention distance from kitchen sink for a plug and socket arrangemant

Therefore you can't simply code a socket simply for being <300mm from the sink - instead you have consider whether it's suitable for the conditions - which is a BS 7671 matter (perhaps informed by guidance that gives typlcally acceptable distances for typically IP rated (IP2X) sockets).

   - Andy.

So what ? There are lots of things the regs don't give a hard number for. The inspector is paid to make a professional judgement, not to parrot figures from some guide, anyone can do that.

I'd suggest that an inspection, if it is to be done properly is actually not an activity suited to the inexperienced, as it requires the ability not just to install something in one specific 'cookie cutter' way that works, but also to step into the shoes / mindset of the original designer and/or installer to see all the other possibilities, and perhaps all the credible failure modes, and then decide if it was sensible or not.

Books like the code breakers may be a good friend, but I suggest also a bad master. 

Mike.

mapj1 said:

to step into the shoes / mindset of the original designer and/or installer to see all the other possibilities, and perhaps all the credible failure modes, and then decide if it was sensible or not.

The use of the property is also important.  EG a PRS (Private Rental Sector) average 3 bed dwelling as this will include the requirement for smoke/heat alarms.  The CO alarms should/could be dealt with by the heating engineer when they do their annual Gas Safe Service and inspection.