Coding and regs in force at time of installation

ideally the inspector would code on the basis of the level of risk rather than the age of the installation. Consider for example you cannot sensibly pass open switchgear as safe in a domestic setting just because it was not prohibited  in 1900, regardless of when it was installed, as the shock hazard is the same old or new. However it might be fine as part of a living museum behind a thick perspex window, not because of when it was installed, but because the risk has been successfully dealt with, just  in a non- standard way.

Something like a missing arc fault device is tricky, as the true risk is hard to judge, and there is very little evidence to suggest that installations with them have any fewer fires or that they save lives - unlike for example RCDs, where quite a few lives demonstrably have been saved by them and one can decide based on an estimate of shock risk (hence they are less important in a dry building and more important in the garden and on farms etc, as that is where the accident figures lead us)

However, the inspection should always be a comparison against the latest standard, and so the non compliance should always be reported, the only uncertainty is what to recommend as next steps - which may be as mild as ' this is not wired to current standards' or as severe as 'stop using it today'.  If it is very recent it may be worth asking the designers what process / evidence their decision was based on if they are known.

Mike.

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 So, it could be a little out of date on completion.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.

mapj1 said:

However, the inspection should always be a comparison against the latest standard, and so the non compliance should always be reported, the

653.2 only requires the reporting of non-compliances that ‘“may give rise to danger”. That would suggest that  code 3 issues relating to non-compliances are not specifically required to be given.

However, I think rather than code the absence of an AFDD in a HRRB, I would note it on the report and leave it to others to assess the risk.

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.  

lyledunn said:

653.2 only requires the reporting of non-compliances that ‘“may give rise to danger”. That would suggest that  code 3 issues relating to non-compliances are not specifically required to be given.

Would you classify something as C3 if it had no bearing upon the safety of the installation?

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.