VIR for your Perusal and Comment !!!

[PC Electrics]

You know where this is going...........

Here is the text of a visual inspection report that a client of mine has recieved from his prospective purchasers. No names no pack drill. Serious comments on each point please:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Having visually inspected the above property the items below were noted as recommendations of improvement.

1. Consumer Unit was a split load type with half of the circuits having RCD protection. It is current regulations that all circuits are protected by an RCD. RCD operates ok manual test.

2. No Lift up cover protecting MCB breakers (due to constraints of outer cupboard)

3. Outer cover of consumer unit has several holes, these impact the IP2X rating and should be sealed

4. No mixed colours Sticker on C/U

5. No RCD test sticker on C/U

6. Circuit 1, 2 &5 are BS60898 10 amp MCB with a 1.0mm t&e cable. The cable has an insufficient csa to manage this amount of current. MCB requires to be downgraded to a 6 amp

7. Circuit 11 (Shower) has a BS60898 B40 amp MCB with a 6mm cable, this is recommended that it is reduced to 32 amp MCB or cable increased to 10mm depending on load

8. The Installation has no record of having a Test/Inspection carried out. This is highly recommended.

9. Downlights throughout the property are not Firerated. Recommend changing them all to appropriate rating

10. No hardwired smoke alarms found.

11. Throughout the house there are cables clipped directly to beams, walls etc with no mechanical protection. i.e. mini trunking.

12. Cable in kitchen with a taped up end. This requires further investigation and making safe

13. Bathroom, en-suites lighting circuits required to be RCD protected

14. No Bonding to metal work in Bathroom or en-suites

15. No extraction fans in Bathroom or en-suite No.2

16. Outhouse cables are not mechanically protected. (mini trunking)

17. Outhouse supply cables require re-attaching to catenary wire

18. Outhouse catenary wire requires earthing

19. Outhouse supply cable is too small a CSA.Needs to be 4mm not 2.5mm

20. Garage SWA at rear of outhouse requires supporting

In general the Installation requires a little bit of work to get it to current regulations. The Consumer Unit would ideally be replaced for a dual RCD type. This would illiminate a number of issues noted The Downlighters require Upgrading to a fire rated type. Smoke detectors require hard wiring. A lot of switches and sockets are showing signs of wear.

This survey was purely a visual check of the electrical installation. No items were tested or inspected. Consumer unit cover was removed for visual inspection only. It is recommended a full inspection & Test is carried out.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My client has told me that his purchaser isn't trying to use this to lever the purchase price down, but may wish to use it when negotiating for fixtures and fittings. The property is a barn conversion, done around 25 years ago.

There's a couple of the "old chestnuts" in there. In particular we've done item 7 to death in the past. He wants me to reply in general terms without spending too much time on it - now I know what I think of this, but I open it up to the floor...........

 

[sparkytim]

For items 6 and 7 just show him OSG page 57 and 64 i.e 10 Amp protective device protects 1mm (rated at 11 Amps) and 40 Amp protects 6mm if clipped direct.

Often come across these muppetts and their miths.

 

[Zeespark]

And I wondering why I might be having to spend a fortune on PI in time, the answer is right here.

1. He needs to read the guidance on why regulations cant be retrospective.

2. Minor thing at worst, are there spare fuse ways not being protected?

3. I always thought it was 4X, square or round holes?

4. Was there any new wiring installed in the CU? if not, no need for a sticker.

5. Why would you need an RCD test sticker? you have more details about their test results on an EIC. I would agree about a quarterly sticker for a customer, but do they bother?

6. This 'electrician' needs to go back to trade school, I wouldn't expect a 2nd year apprentice to come out with that statement.

7. I haven't got My regulations to hand, but what is the size of the shower?

8. When was the install last tested and inspected?

9. He needs to read his Building Regs, I would personally always fit fire rated, but its not necessary to conform to Building Regulations. No need for him to say anything on that point.

10. See point number 9.

11. See point 6, no mechanical protection needed if the cables are out of reach.

12. I would agree with that one, find out what circuit is powering that cable and work from there.

13. Not if it was installed on 16th Edition Regulations.

14. I would need to do continuity tests on the copper pipes to prove this, if we are talking taps etc, it's not needed.

15. Building Regulations again, is there a window in each of these rooms? if so a fan isnt needed but maybe advisable to have one installed.

16. Post 6.

17. What distance is the SWA hanging by?

18. Does it bollox. (This bloke is starting to really annoy Me now)

19. What is the design/load specification for the outhouse? distance from the main board?

20. Supporting how?

AndyGuinness

 

[Doc Hudson]

The short answer is the standard phrase that "regs are not retrospective". Other observations re the comment 'cables clipped direct to the beams do not have mechanical protection' surely this is the very purpose of the sheath? 1.0mm can carry well over 10A dependent upon installation methods (16A clipped direct according to the on site guide Method C), and 6.0mm up to 47A clipped direct. Are the clipped direct cables the lighting circuits? if so then they may not need RCD protection. I would think that the simplest answer would be to photocopy the table from the on site guide for flat twin and earth, attach it to a covering letter saying the due to the contradictions between the actual BS7671 guidance and this persons interpretation of cable capacities you suspect they may be inexperience at some aspects of inspection and testing, as such you doubt the validity of much of this inspection. Even if it is only a visual check, they could still have referenced the alleged discrepancies to what they think are relevant regulations. Possibly the holes in the CU may be valid, but no hinged cover over the MCB's has no safety issue what so ever.

Doc H.

 

[kme]

Whilst concurring with my esteemed colleagues:

bearing in mind this a a visual only -

With the exception of the daft comments r.e. cable sizes and catenary earthing (???? WTF? I don`t believe I`ve ever earthed a catenary - am I missing summat?)

A lot of comments are stuff a relatively inexperienced person may put; but there are a few comments I agree with - they may not be actual regs that they MUST be done, but, although regs aren`t retrospective, you ARE checking for non-compliances with the current regulations.

 

[Manator]

Steptoe is going to love this one.

 

[steptoe]

Im not even going to start,

apart from the fact that a visual inspection isnt even worth walking round the property for,

I turn them down, even at

 

[Theorysparky]

the points i would address would be the cu holes

and check the pipe continuity of the bathroom

did the guy even test the trip times for the rcd ???? zs tests at sockets

im not being funny but i would have stuck an rcd label on the cu

i would like to have seen his codings for that list,,,,that would be funny

 

[PC Electrics]

I shall come back to this later, but I agree with all of you and your responses are much as I expected. My client needs a serious reply, so I have to come up with some diplomatic words - whilst we can scoff in here it wouldn't look professional out in the real world.

Cable ratings - done to death in here (see OSG section 7)

Catenary wire earthing - lets not forget towel rails, loo roll holders and metal window frames !!

The only items maybe of concern:

lack of supplementary bonding in bathrooms. Inspection and test required to prove, but an RCBO in the lights circuit would resolve this.

holes in the CU - I saw this CU a few weeks ago, don't recall seeing any holes so can't be too serious or obvious. But, ok, maybe

Cable to outhouse - needs an assessment of the design load vs volt drop. As long as the cable is protected by the ocpd is the main thing.

Outhouse cables hanging - ok so they need reattaching, nothing a few cable ties won't fix.

Smokes: no compulsion to fit. A wireless linked battery powered set from Aico would be a good addition though.

Fire rated downlights: again no compulsion in a single dwelling, but perhaps insulation guards over the ones in the loft would be a good idea

Dual RCD board: regs not retrospective (we've mentioned an RCBO for lights), but in any case it's a large property so I'd recommend a high integrity unit

Oh, another telling thing: I cannot find the contractor listed on any of the pP sites with any of the schemes. Though I can find them on Yell.

 

[ElectekAir]

PC try here

Competent Persons Register | Home

Not sure how reliable though

 

[Doc Hudson]

, but, although regs aren`t retrospective, you ARE checking for non-compliances with the current regulations.

I think I understand what you mean but this statement KME, i.e. all checks and tests done during an inspection (full or visual) are done with current regulations as the measuring stick. However, I want to try an clarify this point a bit further, It may also help PC Electrics with how he words his guidance to his client. We must remember that the fundamental principal of any inspection, is to verify if an installation is electrical safe for continued service. It is not just checking for non compliances with current wiring regulations, otherwise nearly every installation would fail. A brand new installation fully compliant to an older version of BS761, does not become unsatisfactory a month later when an updated version of BS7671 is issued.

I think many inexperience electricians, such as the person who undertook this report, forget to take account of the principals, purpose and guidance for inspection. The opening paragraphs of chapter 62 periodic inspection and testing, the opening paragraph of the guidance notes for recipients on condition reports and the opening paragraph of chapter 3 of guidance note #3, all say in very similar words that it is to determine as far as reasonably practical if the installation is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for continued service, with regard to endangering people property and livestock. They do comment about defects and non compliances that may give rise to danger, but not all non compliances per-say.

The final bottom line assessment for a visual or full inspection is Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory, not Compliant or Non Compliant. So comments such as "In general the Installation requires a little bit of work to get it to current regulations." made by this inspector are actually irrelevant as a definition of safety, as is the comment that smoke detectors require hard wiring, how can cables that are not there be electrically unsafe? These all show lack of experience at performing inspection and testing. I would guess that the non retrospective nature of wiring regulations is a pivotal point in 90%+ of EICR errors.

Doc H.

 

[SteveT]

Im not even going to start,apart from the fact that a visual inspection isnt even worth walking round the property for,

I turn them down, even at

 

[Doc Hudson]

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement 'people need to understand the difference between Building Regs - and BS7671'and also definitions - i.e standard house without loft is classed as one fire compartment'

If the property has an integral garage, isn't the garage a separate compartment from the rest of the property?

Doc H.

 

[NozSpark]

OK, here are my serious comments (in RED)

You know where this is going...........Here is the text of a visual inspection report that a client of mine has recieved from his prospective purchasers. No names no pack drill. Serious comments on each point please:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Having visually inspected the above property the items below were noted as recommendations of improvement.

1. Consumer Unit was a split load type with half of the circuits having RCD protection. It is current regulations that all circuits are protected by an RCD. RCD operates ok manual test.

Whilst the current regulations do effectively state that all cables in a domestic property require RCD protection, this installation was installed and is compliant with a previous version of the regulations (which aren't retrospective)

2. No Lift up cover protecting MCB breakers (due to constraints of outer cupboard)

From what I know there is no regulation regarding this

3. Outer cover of consumer unit has several holes, these impact the IP2X rating and should be sealed

This does sound like a genuine problem which can be easily rectified with sealant

4. No mixed colours Sticker on C/U

Easily rectified

5. No RCD test sticker on C/U

Easily rectified

6. Circuit 1, 2 &5 are BS60898 10 amp MCB with a 1.0mm t&e cable. The cable has an insufficient csa to manage this amount of current. MCB requires to be downgraded to a 6 amp

1.0mm is fine on a 10A MCB, I'm guessing they used a 10A to reduce nuisence tripping when lamps fail

7. Circuit 11 (Shower) has a BS60898 B40 amp MCB with a 6mm cable, this is recommended that it is reduced to 32 amp MCB or cable increased to 10mm depending on load

Nothing wrong with this so long as installation methods allow

8. The Installation has no record of having a Test/Inspection carried out. This is highly recommended.

Fair enough

9. Downlights throughout the property are not Firerated. Recommend changing them all to appropriate rating

Fair enough recommendation, especially for downstairs rooms, however there is no regulation to back this up

10. No hardwired smoke alarms found.

Again, a fair enough recommendation, however they don't "have" to be installed - would be nice though

11. Throughout the house there are cables clipped directly to beams, walls etc with no mechanical protection. i.e. mini trunking.

nothing wrong with this

12. Cable in kitchen with a taped up end. This requires further investigation and making safe

Fair call for a visual, but how hard would it have been to check it with a volt stick?

13. Bathroom, en-suites lighting circuits required to be RCD protected

see #1

14. No Bonding to metal work in Bathroom or en-suites

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there, further investigation required

15. No extraction fans in Bathroom or en-suite No.2

See #1

16. Outhouse cables are not mechanically protected. (mini trunking)

If there is an increased risk of mechanical damage then it might be advisable

17. Outhouse supply cables require re-attaching to catenary wire

Fair call

18. Outhouse catenary wire requires earthing

LOL :slap

19. Outhouse supply cable is too small a CSA.Needs to be 4mm not 2.5mm

why? What is the loading/ocpd?

20. Garage SWA at rear of outhouse requires supporting

Fair call

In general I'm a bit short of work at the moment and have commented on how I'd like to see the installation rather than on it's safety,,, unfortunately I'm also a little bit inexperienced and don't really know what I'm going on about the Installation requires a little bit of work to get it to current regulations. The Consumer Unit would ideally be replaced for a dual RCD type again I'm short of work and this would be a nice earner for me . This would illiminate a number of issues noted The Downlighters require Upgrading to a fire rated type. Smoke detectors require hard wiring. A lot of switches and sockets are showing signs of wear. money, money, money,,,, all I want is your money

This survey was purely a visual check of the electrical installation. No items were tested or inspected. Consumer unit cover was removed for visual inspection only. It is recommended a full inspection & Test is carried out.I basically did ****** all but walk around for

 

[kerching]

Unless I am missing a trick here #15....fans in Bathrooms...is that not a building reg and NOT 7671??

I am prepared to be corrected [Kylie, Willoughby, Vorderman, Lois Griffin]....... :coat

 

[Steve3948]

lack of supplementary bonding in bathrooms. Inspection and test required to prove, but an RCBO in the lights circuit would resolve this.

For all circuits within a room containing a fixed bath or shower, let's not forget Electric Shower, Towel rail or Heater.

 

[PC Electrics]

Nice text there Doc H. Thanks for that, if you don't mind I'll crib some of that.

Yes, garages integral with the building are a seperate fire compartment.

Yes, extraction in kitchens and bathrooms is building regs.

Although I'm not intimately involved with this installation, the comment about the RCBO on the lights takes into account that I know the towel rail heaters are off the sockets circuit and so RCD protected already. Electric shower also already RCD protected.

Thanks too to Noz.

There's good stuff there from everyone. I'll be formulating my reply later, once I've partaken of some more of my Fathers Day present (a bottle of Balvenie btw).

Manators comments about replying with facts (from another thread) is also very relevant here. I'll be sure to differentiate my overall opinion of this report and its percieved purpose from the facts though.

 

[Doc Hudson]

Crib, Cut & Paste as much as you want PC. This surely is the main reason most of us are on the forum posting our thoughts and sharing comments. To assist others to increase their understanding, ability and wisdom of all thing electrically related and to all work together to hopefully help raise the standards of the majority of electricians working in the trade, so we all can adopt a more professional approach to our clients. Be they homeowners, large businesses, local councils who we are contacting to, Or students we are teaching, Or other electricians we are selling materials to, or any combination thereof. Admin set this forum up so we can all all share and help each other, so feel free to use modify or adapt anything that will get your points over.

Doc H.

_________________________________________________​

 

[PC Electrics]

Here is my reply which I have just submitted:

Having visually inspected the above property the items below were noted as recommendations of improvement.

Consumer Unit was a split load type with half of the circuits having RCD protection. It is current regulations that all circuits are protected by an RCD. RCD operates ok manual test.

Glebe Farm barn conversion is about 25 years or so old and so was wired to 16th Edition Wiring Regulations. This is a usual situation with older properties. Although new installations to 17th Edition would require more RCD protection than is here, the new regulations are not retrospective and this does not mean the installation is in any way unsafe.

No Lift up cover protecting MCB breakers (due to constraints of outer cupboard)

A very common situation. There is no impact on safety.

Outer cover of consumer unit has several holes, these impact the IP2X rating and should be sealed

I have only looked at the consumer unit once when carrying out a minor repair. I feel sure that if these holes were serious, I would have noticed. However, sealant or a piece of trunking could resolve this issue if it is felt necessary.

No mixed colours Sticker on C/U

A very minor issue having no real impact on safety, but easily rectified.

No RCD test sticker on C/U

A very minor issue having no real impact on safety, but easily rectified.

Circuit 1, 2 &5 are BS60898 10 amp MCB with a 1.0mm t&e cable. The cable has an insufficient csa to manage this amount of current. MCB requires to be downgraded to a 6 amp

I would consider this highly unlikely, but in any event inspection of the circuits to determine the cable installation methods would be required. The installation methods for downstairs lights is likely to be

 

[NozSpark]

PC

In regard to the 10A MCB on the lighting circuit,,,, it might be quite relevant to say that the loading on those circuits is likely to be nowhere near 10A and that a 10A MCB was probably fitted to reduce nusience tripping in the event of a lamp blowing