I have come across many new builds where they would not meet the requirements at the time of installation.
We have brought this up with the developer / installer,they have mostly quoted best practise guide 4 saying that it's only a C3.
The way I read bpg4 is that it's for coding when the instalation was to a previous edition of the regulations.
What recourse is there in this situation?
When the developer placed the contract, what did it actually say in terms of versions of standards to be applied ?
To follow '7671 is not a legal requirement. A few (different dated) versions are referred to in various statutes (*), but generally what version to build to is a matter agreed at contract time - I'd be the first to suggest that normally 'the latest' or the one current at time of signature are both examples of sensible approaches the latter more for multi year projects. , and most unlikely to not meet the needs of any back issue as well, but there is no legal lever to enforce that.
Mike.
Examples
The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector Regulations 2020 refers to "BS7671 2018"
The ESCQR however requires the "2008 IEE Wiring Regulations 17th Edition"
Part P such as the actual legally binding act is concerned only needs
P1. Reasonable provision shall be made in the design
and installation of electrical installations in order to
protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the
installations from fire or injury.installations from fire or injury
But the approved document (which is only advisory) recommends BS7671 as the best way to do this.
It is as they say a muddle..
We have discussed this a number of times.
I am unclear as to whether you are doing initial verification or periodic I&T.
If an EIC, you verify against the design. The Edn/Amd will have been put in the designer's part on the first page. If an EICR, you I&T against the current Edn/Amd, so the version which applied at the time is irrelevant.
If, for example, there is no RCD protection, you code it the same whether the installation was erected against 15th Edn (when it was only for equipment which might be used outdoors, e.g. the socket by the back door) or 18th Edn.
What recourse is there in this situation?
If the houses were sold as "with wiring complying with the regs" I guess the original purchaser might have a legal claim against the builders (especially if there was a cert saying it complies when evidence can demonstrate otherwise - whoever's name is on the cert might be potentially gripping the bar as well). If it was in England/Wales and originally notified via a self certification scheme, they might take an interest too.
But I agree, if it's an periodic inspection, safety-wise the installation is what it is, what is should have been in the past makes no difference.
- Andy.
I have come across many new builds where they would not meet the requirements at the time of installation.
We have brought this up with the developer / installer,they have mostly quoted best practise guide 4 saying that it's only a C3.
The way I read bpg4 is that it's for coding when the instalation was to a previous edition of the regulations.
What recourse is there in this situation?
What did the contract say?
It's not the version of BS 7671 at the time of construction, but the version agreed in the contract ... whcih is why BS 7671 no longer says what it used to say about when the standard had to be used ... BS 7671 had no business to 'demand' a ;variation to existing contracts.
Standard forms of construction contract cite a 'base date' against which standards (and legislation) are 'frozen' unless there's a contract variation.
If the contractor believes a change in legislation might lead to a need to vary the contract, they apply for a variation, which, if agreed, is costed per the contract ... similarly, if a change in standards occurs, which leads to risk assessments, safety, or legal compliance, being impaired, a request for variation is advised by the contractor.
This is really a legal matter ... and I'm certainly not a legal professional.
If the houses were sold as "with wiring complying with the regs" I guess the original purchaser might have a legal claim against the builders (especially if there was a cert saying it complies when evidence can demonstrate otherwise - whoever's name is on the cert might be potentially gripping the bar as well).
Yes, a legal matter, but in terms of 'compliant', which version of the standard?
We have discussed this a number of times.
Agreed ... but as this is not a forum for legal professionals, only those with the relevant expertise would be able to advise, and certainly not something that can be answered "in general"..
This is really a legal matter ...
Just to add a little spice to the mix, many dwellings are sold prior to completion.
As others have said, it is all in the contract. I have never bought a new house, so I have never read a contract of sale, but I rather doubt that all the applicable standards are expressly mentioned. However, they may be implied in the contract.
Without doubt, caveat emptor applies to the second and subsequent owners, who can assure themselves of the safety, etc. of a dwelling by having it surveyed.
which version of the standard?
the one written on the EIC after the "in accordance with BS 7671 ..." bit (unless of course the difference is mentioned in the departures section & justified). If the installation didn't comply (even with only C3s) the cert would be false.
- Andy.
I wonder if this is more about Newfutile being asked to issue an EICR for new dwellings as the original installer hasn’t provided an EIC for whatever reason. Happens here frequently. BC prepared to accept an EICR as there is no possibility of getting the EIC. That being the case, the report might indicate that the purpose of the inspection was to determine if the installation complied with whatever version of BS7671 BC might have accepted certification for.
I wonder if this is more about Newfutile being asked to issue an EICR for new dwellings as the original installer hasn’t provided an EIC for whatever reason.
Well, now that's another story ... and not good either.
That being the case, the report might indicate that the purpose of the inspection was to determine if the installation complied with whatever version of BS7671 BC might have accepted certification for.
But that would surely rely also on a designer's statement on the absent EIC ... in fact, in these particular circumstances, the EIC not being provided, the answer would have to be "No it didn't!'
Again, it must all be in the contracts.
So, the developer requests final BC approval. BC says, "show us your EIC".
The developer goes to the electrical contractor and says, "give us the EIC".
The electrical contractor goes to the designer sub-contractor and says, "fill in your bit of the EIC".
A contract is simply an agreement which is enforcable in law. So, unless somebody has died, or a company has been dissolved, BC should get its EIC. Accepting an EICR in lieu is a fudge.
I wonder whether other trade forums (gas fitters, plumbers, glaziers, roofers, etc.) have similar discussions?
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
