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?
Accepting an EICR in lieu is a fudge
Yes, but what if the designer/installer has died or their company hits the wall? As I understand it, there is no other mechanism available to "certify" the installation. So, fudge it is!
And of course installation by persons unknown to be regularized by building control - which happens to whole buildings, not just electrical installations !!
This does indeed happen with glazing, new toilets, kitchens, chimney repairs and all sorts of notifiable works quite often that for one reason or another were not actually notified, and perhaps it is only realised late on it should have been. LA building control pick up the bits by inspecting where they can. Electrics is a very small low-risk part of it.
If we thought the risk was high enough to be worth it we might have an extra deep EICR, something more like the single vehicle harassment that occurs with home made kit cars in lieu of a first MOT. But really it isn't, so long as the EICR is actually done conscientiously - and not by a £50 cash drive-by outfit !
Mike.
If we thought the risk was high enough to be worth it we might have an extra deep EICR, something more like the single vehicle harassment that occurs with home made kit cars in lieu of a first MOT.
Or you can drive your 100 year old car, which has virtually nothing which we would regard as a safety device and which does not need an MOT. Anybody fancy 100 year old electrics?
Yes, but what if the designer/installer has died or their company hits the wall? As I understand it, there is no other mechanism available to "certify" the installation. So, fudge it is!
Appoint another 'designer', or agree a course of action acceptable to relevant 'solvent' or 'remaining' parties, perhaps overseen by a relevant 'adjudicator' ?
Yes, I agree, it might involve a mutually-agreed party carrying out inspections and/or tests, but that's not an EICR unless previously agreed ... and if it were, there would be a good dose of limitations?
I think in 50 years time, we will indeed see a noticeable fraction of >100 year old wiring remaining in service - PVC, polythene and other modern plastics do not degrade in the way of the early cotton covered or India rubber, that used to rot and perish respectively. We have some pre-WW2 lead-clad paper insulated street mains still in service in some of our cities. The kit at both ends of the cable has been changed though, and it is being reactively repaired when it fails, but the good stuff that is not overloaded will probably survive quite a bit longer.
Once designs stabilize, well-engineered solutions tend to have long lives.
We are after all flying around using jet engines designed in the 1960s and some military craft from the 1950s.
(and as far as I know, B52s are still in service for the USA in a few corners of the planet.)
Mike
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2024/16-09-2024-rolls-royce-celebrates-t56-ae-2100-engine-milestones.aspx note the part
Making its first flight in 1954 and still in production today, the T56 engine powers the C-130H Hercules...
Once designs stabilise, well engineerd solutions tend to have long lives.
I am surprised to find that some of what we think is modern is in fact 100 years old already.
MCBs though not quite as we know them.
DIN rail also has its origins in 1920s Germany.
BS 4293 earth-leakage circuit-breakers go back to 1968 and were replaced by the familiar BS EN 61008 devices (along with BS EN 60898) in around 1990.
So, the modern (domestic) installation does seem to have stabilised. Perhaps some will still be going strong in another 65 years.
Not sure about AFDDs though.
I have not been asked to issue eicr in place of a missing eic.this is a case of some of our new builds not meeting regulations at the time of installation.
I thought BS7671 took away the clause to design to an earlier edition? If not then do we work to best practise guide 4?
bs7671 may not be statutory but electricity at work regulations are .
The ESCQR however requires the "2008 IEE Wiring Regulations 17th Edition"
Maybe the ESCQR needs to be updated as 2008 was close to 2 decades ago?
It's not the version of BS 7671 at the time of construction, but the version agreed in the contract
Maybe some house builders are stretching CDM as house construction style and designs are changing more frequent than 5 years thus how are they allowed to say the design is 5 years old and therefore we can use BS7671 17th edition
This is a loop hole that needs to be closed or at least tightened up. Building control also needs to make sure the rules are not being stretched. House builders should be made by NHBC and UK law to maintain a copy of EIC for the 10 year period that the warranty applies.
If the installation contains an evse I assume it all needs to comply with amendment 1
Amendment 1:2020 to BS 7671:2018 Requirements for Electrical Installations was issued on 1st February 2020 and may be implemented immediately. Electrical installations falling within the scope of Section 722, the erection of which is commenced after 31st July 2020, are to comply with BS 7671:2018 incorporating Amendment 1:2020
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
