I Think This Is Right Other Electricians Say Im Wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- link for Tradify free 14 day trial bit.ly/4e3wp2P
Get 10% off Rhino Trade Insurance using code BUNDY10 at www.rhinotradeinsurance.com/quote
Amazon store front www.amazon.co....
Ansell gloves i wear www.youtube.co...
Use code BUNDY25 at unilite.co.uk/... for 25% off
Use code BUNDY10 at www.expertelec... for 10% discount
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @nbundyelectrical
This video is for entertainment purposes only and is in no way intended as a guide or 'how to'.
I think how you balance your high standards and practical approach to people’s budgets is admirable Nick. As well as putting it out there under public scrutiny 🧐
You are right if it complied when it was done you can put a satisfactory on it, it's knowing when it was done and to which edition.
Electrical safety council were advising a code 3 for no RCD protection on sockets while napit were saying code 2.
I put a code 2 on a job I did for well known children's charity their building guy didn't like it and got another NIC firm in who passed it, this was a workplace and the staff were bringing in their own appliances, which I knew and explained to him but he wouldn't have it, so I let them get on with it.
It's me in the dock if it goes tits up and these people will not come to your defence if it means saving their own neck.
The regulations are not retrospectively applicable. However, what you can fail an installation on is if any of the original install has failed or is now dangerous. Sockets without RCDs for example were and are still fine until they were required in the 16th, unless added afterwards, in which case the whole circuit could be changed for an RCD/RCBO or a RCD faceplate if the cabling standard was sufficient. Until the 16th we provided only basic protection for almost every circuit. Additional protection was an RCD, which was not required by the regs. David Savery did a video about this in relation to the newish landlord requirements - this makes no difference - the regs state that they are not retrospective. You can certainly recommend for improvement to provide RCD, AFD & surge protection if it was not part of the regulation requirements at the time. It is up to the person responsible to decide if they want to do the additional protection measures. And in court, providing you tested to the regulations, that is also OK as there is no ground to prosecute, you the sparky. However, I would make it clear on the EICR that you have recommended an improvement that could, and that is the key word, could, have been made. Some landlords will just change them out to not have that issue. Some won't.
@@guffermeister that's quite right couldn't agree more, and at the end of the day you have to put your name on that report and it's you in the dock.
And my own personal opinion there's no excuse these days not to have RCD protection at least on sockets.
C3 every time, but my stock phrase on the cert is 'RCD was not required at time of installation, however a significant increase in safety could be afforded by installing RCBOs or an external RCD'
@@acelectricalsecurity This is wrong.
You do NOT need to know to what version of the regs were in force at the time the installation was constructed.
It is completely irrelevant.
When you do the EICR and you make observations, you are comparing the installation to the latest version of the regs.
You identify where the installation is not currently compliant.
However, when you identify parts of the installation that are not compliant to the current regs, there is no legal obligation on either the installation owner or electrician to upgrade the installation in order to achieve compliance to the current regs.
You should highlight the observations where there are differences and make recommendations to the installation owner, but they are NOT legally obliged to change the installation to bring it up to compliance to the current regs
What conceivable benefit is there to comparing the installation to an older edition of the regs? There is absolutely no benefit.
It serves no purpose.
You do get benefit by comparing to the current regs as it means you are identifying opportunities for safety improvements.
@@deang5622 yeah you do your thing I will do mine thanks very much
When your megger flashes 0.00ohms on the r1+r2 test this means its NOT nulled, I would recommend to test the cpc of the individual circuit to avoid parallel paths (a true reading) always test from the furthest point of the circuit ie metal body of oven/hob etc etc. keep er lit Nick 👍
People get too bogged down with what others think. The person who's signing the report is the one who has to stand up in court and justify their decision should the worst happen. There is no "correct" answer, just use your engineering judgement to determine if the installation is safe for continued use. Knowledge and experience are essential for carrying out eicr's. Unfortunately some sparks bend the regulations to rip people off scaring them into having unnecessary works carried out. Could the installation be safer? Sure. But that's not the question. It's is safe for continued use. Only knowledge of new and old editions of the regs and installation methods can answer that.
I completely agree, if it’s an upstairs flat no access to outdoors with say a Crabtree C50 board I’ll give it a satisfactory EICR providing it has supplementary bonding in bathrooms where required and all test results are within spec. I’ve seen guys C2’ing no smoke alarms 🤦♂️🤣.
Totally agree. Just because it's sub-standard doesnt't make it unsafe. RCD's are for additional protection on Tn systems, Ads should apply for fuses & breakers etc. I'd certainly code C2's on no RCD's for potential use of sockets outside & bathrooms without equipotential bonding.
Hasn't the reg changed to just all sockets now ?
It is similar to my country in EU. The testing method should be done according to the actual standards, but the evaluation should be based on the regulation at the date of installation. So if there was evidently no modification (not referring to a socket change, or to a new earthing rod installation during maintenance), then it should be a satisfactory in EICR.
Unfortunately several electrician use it to scam people. Like you mentioned, swap out fuse board with no reason with minimal effort (several cases with cheap things from home depot) and ask for lot of money and give a pass. (or worst case fake something without certification)
The point they forget, if you change the board now, then the entire residence should meet the actual regulations, not only the board, but they leave the dodgy setup in place. If a conscientious inspector arrives later, then he would had passed the original setup, but it will fail it with the actual condition as modification was not made according to the to code at the time of the change.
What you’re saying Nick, is… some trades men are scum bags. And they’d rob the eyes out of your head and come back for the sockets
No pun intended..
those are not tradesman -those are contractors after all you cant have con-tractor without the CON 1st lol
🗽
Biggest over indulged trade there is.
You are a true professional. Your approach to your customers and your trade is to be admired.
I personally have now retired, after completing my apprenticeship in 1977... holding 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th edition qualifications.. (when I was offered the 18th edition course by the company I was working for I said.. I'm six months away from retirement.. give it to one of the younger lads! and several other qualifications including being the authorised person for 10kV switching at a local factory
Sadly I have been called in from time to time to give an opinion of work and/or quotes being given by some supposed "experts" to family and friends.
Quite frankly some of it has been horrifying and I have always been a big sceptic of this "Part P" bullshit that allows people with a minimum level of training to buy a serious qualification
I used to chuck a long lead out of the 3rd floor window of my parents maisonette to cut the grass, on a rewireable 60s board. Still here.
Good video Nick as always. I've been an electrician for many decades and consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject (As all us electricians do lol) and as on all your video's I can't find fault in anything you say. Except for as someone else mentioned in the comments the parallel paths, yea it's a thing but in a house that size I would not lose any sleep by leaving all the earths on the finals connected in the board when I did the EICR. So long as I got good readings at the time of the test and everything is earthed. On a new install that's a whole different kettle of fish I would test each circuit before connecting to the board.
when doing R1+R2 or Zs on ovens and hobs i always only plug the red on the plug and test using a probe onto the chassis for the cpc, obvs just add the neutral for the Zs, just proves that there's a complete earth path to things that are touched, testing only at the socket will not show an earth fault on the actual appliance.
Whilst I don't disagree, cooker testing is 'PAT' testing, not EICR
@@Donc1305 the purpose of an EICR is to deem an installation safe to use, thus including the bonding/earthing to any exposed or extraneous parts. testing at the isolator socket does not prove that the cpc has been connected either into the isolator nor the oven connection point of which has nothing to do with a PAT test. if you were to test like this in a 2391 assessment you would fail. I don't doubt Nick's ability, I thinks he's an absolute gem to watch and i have gained many valuable tip/tricks of him which I am grateful for.
You're testing the fixed wiring not the Oven.
RCD protection is a C3 all the way unless you can use it outdoors. Bathrooms also C3 as long as it has supplementary bonding if not C2.
"9:05" The reason you should always disconnect from the earth bar is because of parallel paths, with the link you may be getting a perfectly good reading and believe the circuit is correctly earthed as the circuit could be bonded via extraneous conductive parts, say for an example someone disconnects this/or it is lost, the appliance will have no earth to it 👍Bin those silly links and start testing properly✨
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 Exactly mate
gas hob, boiler, water heater, hot water cylinder will often give you really low resistance parallel earths.
@@ralph13a The total resistance of a parallel circuit of resistors is always lower than the lowest resistance in the group.
Mainly Electrical explains it a lot often with real life examples.
@@truefoa he's the goat
Great video Nick. The inspection and coding should always be done to the current edition. Your completed form will state as such in the wording - inspected and tested to BS 7671:2018. This is what is taught on the 2391. This is also in law, being stated in Electrical Safety Standards in The PRS (England) Regulations 2020.
We are concerned with safety and the suitability of the installation and some things have moved on and depending on the circumstances may warrant being considered potentially dangerous (e.g. where absence of additional protection of sockets is concerned). Other things, which are simply old hat, such as BS 3036 fuses are fine and not even considered codeable.
I have never understood the view to the contrary - the current version is where our expertise lies, in most cases we cannot know what version the original installation was carried out to, nor have access to the correct version of historic regulations. Imagine trying to defend oneself in court on that basis.
If coding to currant regs would no metal cable supports to cables installed prior to 2015 be a c2 or c3?
The frustration of interpreting the regs, why the IET can’t guidance on coding some of these issues, especially regarding domestic properties is beyond me. Best Practice Guide No 6 gives a pretty good structure for coding and can be referred to in reports for coding.
I use an extension lead out my 1st floor flat window so I can hover the van out. I do have RCD protection but I would say people still need it. Just a thought
if the installation tests safe then its satisfactory BUT I would advise an upgrade or at least an RCD socket for external use. people in their 70's are not going to spend £5k + on something that has been ok for years.
Totally agree with you assessment Nick
Hi, good video.
You are correct The regs don’t need to be applied retrospectively but like you said it’s your call as the electrician if you would want to put your name on an installation with no RCD protection.
When your using the wonder lead put the tester around your neck and carry the lead reel with you saves the trips back to the tester. Just need to reel off enough first to get around the property. Also while you going around you can get an R2 at you hob and the hinge on the oven or any other appliances/ white goods.
Not dropping the earths out the bus bar isn’t an issue unless there is parallel paths ie immersion heater could have no R2 but you would get a reading through the water bond or shower could have no R2 and you’d get a reading through the bathroom cage bond.
Like your videos. Nice to see a good tradesman at work 👍
Supposed to disconnect main bonding from both ends to avoid parallel paths when testing!
Agreed - the services will be interconnected at the boiler
I get the same error on my Meggar. I have a work around. It only happens when I use my finger to press the test button. I use a crocodile clip. Works a treat. Be better if it just worked as it should though. 👍
Completely with you on this one.
Iv “past” plenty of plastic DB installations. If everything works within the scope of how it was installed and still good condition and no potential problems there it’s still ok in my mind. There are a lot of poachers out there looking to scam people.
Great vid! 👌
Good to see the X1 back in use, even if it's playing silly buggers 😆
You are 100% correct, rewireable BS3036 board is still fully compliant, but the fusing factor can be an issue, especially with the older 1mm earth on early 80s 2.5mm. As i said below, strong recommendation to replace board with an RCBO one, but it's not a fail... (sorry unsatisfactory).
im a plumber/gasman and it looks like you have a plastic gas main supply to gas meter inside a building, hopefully some one has made your mate aware👍
would be at risk on the unsafe sits. good vid as always 👍
ive done the same as you, honesty works.
If someone walks into a property that is a primary residence with no changes to the electrical layout etc. and they are adamant that a whole new board is needed then they should be front and center of Rogue Traders!
What about if it’s a shit split load board with shit loads of earth leakage (appliances etc so by design) and keeps tripping? lol
If it's actually faulty then that's a different story :) I should have prefaced it with still being in good working order, you are correct!
A good electrician will be strongly recommending a board change, where appropriate, so it depends on how far you push the definition of "adamant".
@@metalhead2550 the board isn’t faulty? It’s just not suitable anymore?
@@stepbackandthink the definition is quite clear in the dictionary ? 🤷🏿♂️
That is good way to testing EICR and good timing Thanks Nick
An EICR is designed to tell the client about the condition of the fixed wiring at the time of the inspection, a plastic rewirable fuseboard is fine as long as the readings come back ok and the eathing is sound. Even a DB without an RCD is ok providing theres adequate earthing and the numbers come back ok. Those lights arent a C3 either, they may look crap but if theyre out of zone and not IP67 rated they pass. Sparks who fail properties for plastic boards and no RCD are scamming clients. The regs as they stand now apply to new installs and alterations so whilst you may perform an EICR to the current regs there is leway whilst carrying out said EICR.
Love the Bosch Go. Nick, do you know that you dont HAVE to use the button to power it? you can just set the direction and push the driver against the screw.... makes it so much better 😁
Wired to previous edition of 7671 with no RCD protection with good Zs and IR readings C3 all day long
The spark that did my tenants' EICR wanted £50 to reconnect the gas bonding which had dropped off after the meter regulator was changed - he also STRONGLY suggested a metal CU since the old one was plastic - he would have gotten the CU change had he not tried to do me for £50 for reconnecting one wire which he could have done on-the-fly even it cost a few quid more. In the end I said, run a PAT on the fridge and washing machine and reconnect the gas bond and I'll leave the CU thanks - he won't be on my list next time unsurprisingly 🙄
Hello nick you are quite right use your own judgement long as it is safe the whole installation and fit to use its delicious as you would say if all the tests are ok you are good to go also did i spot a new Fusebox RCBO board RCD protected yes love your way of working and your tips and tricks well done that man.
Yeah I can’t understand why the regs keep changing, let’s just keep fitting rewireable board, let’s just rid of all regs. Oh yeah it’s call safety, to save people lives. It’s only a recommendation you don’t have change, however let hope nothing goes wrong. If you get an unsatisfactory unless you are a landlord it’s up to you what you do.
Love your videos! But that earth AMP crimp you fitted in the light switch was a 4mm yellow!!!
i found the "hazerdous live" comes from the croc clip not being fully seated on the earth. youll have say 6/10 teeth biting copper but if there is 1 tooth thats barely touch it gives that fault. My x1 also started just giving every ze, zs, zdb as 23ka. so its now back to megger for repair for the second time
even if you connect All live Conductors one by one to the earth bar and going with your tester to each individual circuit will tell you exact reading and you can find easy the Fault
The only time I would Unsat a rewireable fuse board on a 1st floor flat or higher is if it's plastic and in the sole escape route. Not overly worried about it not having an RCD but if it's rented accommodation they should be RCD protected and over 18m tall residential now are advised for AFDD on sockets and have to be if the CU is replaced.
Also both our X1and 1741 throw up the dangerous fault - of the times its happened it has been TNCS with voltage on the main earth because the neutral/earth is buggered in the road.
Recently had a cracking belt from the water bonding as it was the only earth in the entire installation....and the recent charger installation, and upgraded cu paperwork both stated an earth rod was main earth.. go figure !! No earth rod present anywhere, so swapped it out to pme mucho pronto !! Some people don't test correctly, and it can be dangerous.
I see the downstairs socket no RCD C2/C3 thing is causing friction in the comments as always. Having spent in excess of 20 years each myself on both side of and the fence (contracting electrician and then factory maintenance) I still find the "it's my name on the certificate so I'll put what I like" a bit of a disproportionate reaction. If the regs are not retrospective, then they're not retrospective, why would you ever be in the dock for issuing a Satisfactory on such an installation with the correct coding advising improvement?
I have often likened it to an MOT whereby an inspector, no matter how much he might not like how you car is made (e.g. no ABS on an older vehicle), if that particular safety feature was not there when it was manufactured then he cannot, and should not fail it.
Anyway just my opinion, great vid 👍
Ah, yes. Leaving the earths in the MET when testing..
This years obsession is parallel paths and broken earth continuity. I'm all for doing it as obsessively as possible, but with EICRs there's always the time issue and the cost. I just cant get away with charging for the realistic time it would take to do.
Sounds like it all depends on how busy said electrician is.if they aren’t that busy or it’s a bit slow they will do everything to the finest detail to get the extra bit of work but those who are busy know and will make sure everything is safe without wanting the extra work.
Nick the X1 tester on a TNC-S system will react to any voltage on the PE earth even at very low 'noise' level voltages hopefully the firmware updates will correct this!
When doing the trailing lead tests why leave the meter near the board when it would make more sense to have it at the remote end ?
EIC is good enough for renting only when its new installation (new build or rewire)
Our X1 is on latest firmware and still does the 'PE is Hazardous Live' crap, and it's not consistent either, turn it off and back on again and it's often fine!
The test is called continuity of circuit protection conductor (CPC) for a reason, you need to prove the CPC for the circuit you’re testing is continuous to the extremity of the circuit, linking out the earth bar and line conductor doesn’t prove anything. Yes there are times the readings will be exactly the same but there’s also time where you’re getting a false reading from a parallel path.
You test to the regs enforce at the time of install. Regs are NOT applied retrospectly. You make recommendations on the EICR to bring it up to the current regs .
Wrong, you test against current BS 7671 at the time of test not install. See GN3 page 105
I understand what you are saying. If not up to current standards equals a fail, we would be forever chasing our tails. ( not that you should ever chase tails mind 😊)
Don’t be so stupid, you inspect and test to the current regulations… Everyone keeps throwing this term retrospective around like it’s some kind of safety net. I suggest you read the small print on your EICR if you’re unsure what regulations you’re inspecting and testing to.
An analogy: A car without seatbelts built in the 1960’s, or a motorcycle manufactured without indicators, will pass a 2024 MOT Test. Standards are not applied retrospectively.
@@alvina69 yes as gezski says. Sometimes wording of comments can be as confusing as the wording in BS 7671.
What you say is correct, have phone NICEIC TEC to discuss this many time, a installation I fitting 40 year is not dangerous, it’s just not up to current standard , same for a 10 year old house!, if test out fine, that’s satisfactory!, ( tell customer what you honestly think, and if they have the money !!), been to many job where the board has been change because it’s plastic, and has been labelled dangerous 😂😂😂, , in fact on a TT system in the country side, I believe they should be plastic, do a test and your see how low the PFC can be!, and how high earth reading can be, then get a height resistance fault !just use common sense, you know when something not right , use your gut sense, not the reg book, they for guidance
Where do people stand with regards to accessories thats partially covered with paint/filler/grout, and run risk of damaging building fabric removing them? Do people skip these, or do people have disclaimers with clients. I am interested in what people do with this. Thanks.
Happens a lot, just ask the client and if they say no, you test what you can and list it as an observation on the report, or a limitation if it can't be checked all at
You mentioned you added some sockets to the circuit over the past few years, surely your additions do not comply with the regs as there is no RCD? Are you not required to test additions to the latest regs at that time?
Nick is saying if it hasn’t been touched and sup bonding is in place then it’s a satisfactory, which it is, however in my humble opinion if it’s a rewire-able fuse I would recommend a board upgrade not to rip anyone off it’s to do with safety. An old dear try to change a rewire able fuse in the middle winter on a dark evening, cos that’s when they blow.
Those sockets in the small wall are very close to the worktop in the kitchen. Fairly certain they'd be a C3 because of the damage potentially to cables comming out of plugs or wall warts due to excessive strain being so close to the worktop, under any edition of the wiring regs?
Your tester isnt nulled properly
Hi Nick, I had an EICR failed last week due to the electrician getting the same fault showing on his X1 when trying to get a Zs on the upstairs light. Zs value well within regs and insulation resistance on all circuits ok
Surely if you test from earth bar you can get a reading on the socket your testing but doesn’t prove that all sockets have an earth to it, the socket you’ve tested from could’ve got its earth from a parallel path on another circuit??
Estate agents make up their own rules and insist they are law.
I thought this video was going to be about flexicon.
Having the same problem with my X1 nick . "Hazardous live" . Nulling the leads can be temperamental. Just got a brand new set of X1 leads still same problem
Thanks for this video, it just made me to stop thinking about getting this mft. 👌
Do I understand right, u test the Loop Impedance from L to PE and your Megger tells u there is Voltage on the PE and won't let u test?
If you don’t remove the cpc from Earth bar when testing r1 r2 then you might aswell not bother. You could have no cpc at all on a circuit your testing and only getting readings through bonding etc. then someone replaces water pipe with plastic connection and waaahhlaaa. No Earth on that circuit you tested your though was fine. Do it properly
The lead nulling is also awful on these testers, I noticed your has the same issue. Null leads and it always goes minus, I love my X1 for its function and looks and usability, but my god it’s the most frustrating tester I have ever owned.
Wered the kewtech go?
Great video Nick
Nick, I've been in the trade 35 years. We are meant to conduct EICRs based on the regulations as they were when the installation was done, unless the person conducting the EICR considers that something is unsafe. This has been echoed by every NICEIC assessor I've asked. Personally I always go against this, and anything I find that is not compliant with the latest amendment of BS 7671 - 18th edition gets coded in line with NICEIC best Practice guide 4 (or NAPIT's codebreaker book). If we start making decisions whether something is safe or not, we are leaving ourselves open to all kinds of shit. For example if we decide not to code a C.U. without an RCD because we think the installation was installed during a previous edition of the regs, when RCD's were not installed in C.Us, then someone gets a shock and dies, we will be the ones dragged into courts, trying to justify (as an expert in our field) to the the HSE and the dead person's family why we didn't bother to mention in the report about there being no RCD that would have arguably saved a life. Also, how on earth do we know what edition of the regs was in force when the installation was done? (and in fact the specifics of each edition of the regs, and what was common practice at that time). Personally I would rather be accused of suggesting unnecessary work than facing a manslaughter charge. Also remember that un UNSATISFACTORY report does not mean the homeowner is obliged to have the work done. It's confidential between the customer and the electrician. You do an EICR so the customer can make an educated decision as whether to have that new bathroom, or safe electrics.
This lad knows
those hoods are to stop kiddie fiddling , now that doesn't sound right ??? , stop kids messing with the switches
Thought they were to stop inadvertent missile launches.
@@markrainford1219 ha ha ha
Imo the exact readings for the r2 or r1+2 dead tests aren't actually that important. You want to verify continuity and polarity at this stage not the exact Zs. A more accurate Zs value can be obtained later with a live test.
On my X1 the ‘PE Confirmation’ setting on general settings stopped me getting the hazardous live notification on the latest firmware
the royal we, is acceptable, lol
I had trouble with my megger x1 had to get a exchange still not used it gone back to my fluke
Didn't null your wonder lead.
@@rik061119 yes I did
9:07 no need to remove parallel paths on an EICR only on IV for an EIC
Nice bit of testing there dude
Wrong! 🤠How can you be so certain the original test report was done properly? Do it properly, covers your back and can prevent deadly faults.
@@jamess9902I’m not wrong at all, there is no requirement to remove the parallel paths on an EICR,
If you have ever worked in larger scale buildings where there are and abundance of parallel paths you will understand why they do not need to be removed.
In a domestic setting the property is fully isolated at the time of test and it gives your the chance to remove and test out of the earth bar if you wish but not a requirement
@@brightsparkmid 🤠🤠🤠Of course larger scale/industrial is a different kettle of fish, but this is domestic as you say, you should be doing regardless if its a requirement or not as you can miss deadly faults. Should be setting an example with your channel bud 😉😉
@@jamess9902 check gn 3 page 43, shows all connected on EICR
13:45. Oh dear, oh dear. Nick drops an F bomb on a video. 😅😂😊❤. F-ing Adam, not his mum! Sorry Nick, had to go there. Lol
God sake, I’m glad you said that mate it was meant to be edited out
❤😂🎉😮😅@NBundyElectrical
Leave it a socket on a lose and not being mounted on the wall surely goes against the regs
It’s on a plug mate
No it's not as Nick said it's on a plug top (you don't fix your 4 way extension behind your TV to the wall or nail your extension coil for your lawnmower to the wall)
Blokes got some dough shelling out on the Phillips Hue stuff. Fucking joke how expensive that shit is when you can do the same with a £20 actual switch and normal bulbs/lights.
I have Phillips Hue in every spot light in every room in my house and I've not had one fail (touch wood) since I installed them 7 years ago and I still don't get bored by being able to change the colour depending on my mood. I've installed cheaper stuff in other people's house but it does not compare to the Phillips stuff IMO
@@markpotter8280 I forget people actually change colour of lights. I've genuinely not done that since I was a child. That's a fair point, think I'd still rather just grab a zigbee switch and have every light in my home controllable without the expensive bulbs or expensive switches.
Half of my dislike also shares with things like Tapo bulbs, I'm not a fan of having to sign into other companies portals, and use their API's to use products with HomeAssistant for automation, because those API's or portals are always the failure points.
Let’s try to not use the lords name in vain.
X1 seems awfully rubbish. I’ll continue with fluke thanks.
Private property it is 100% the choice of the owner on what work they have done following a test. However you mentioned the peoprty will ve rented out. The rental laws and guidelines these days state that rental properties need to be upto a certain standard, these being current 18th edition, not when the place was installed. There is also a rule that when testing a new build how you test to the regs that the house was designed to, so if the edition changes after the build starts you use the old regs. There really is no set standard and is always hard to decide what you have to follow.
Landlord regulations don't specify a certain standard at all. The requirement is to achieve satisfactory certification.
@@idi0tdetectioninprogress as of 2020 is is a legal requirement for letting properties to be upto current regulation standards. It is the same for all trades. The government (UK) made it law because rented accomodation in some places was not fit to live in. You cannot rent out a place unless it meets current standards. GOV.UK website has it clear on multiple pages. That's why councils all over the country are spending a fortune and completely refitting housing. I do this for a living I have to follow these rules for the councils. www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrical-safety-standards-in-the-private-rented-sector-guidance-for-landlords-tenants-and-local-authorities/guide-for-landlords-electrical-safety-standards-in-the-private-rented-sector
@@sparky-pp8yn Properties do not have to meet current regs, they have to achieve a satisfactory certificate, as is pretty much the norm. I own loads of the damn things!
Any authority or designer may specify things to a higher standard, that's their perogative, but its not an industry requirement to make all rentals compliant to 18th Ed.
@@idi0tdetectioninprogress Google rental property electrical requirements, first page on the GOV.UK website, you may not be aware of these changes. I was caught out by them after the pandemic as well as they do get updated a lot.
@@sparky-pp8yn I suspect you're misinterpreting either how things are worded, or how you're working on your council projects.
The legislation came in 2020 for new tenancies, and by april 21 for existing tenancies, to have an inspection and subsequent issue of a satisfactory EICR, to be valid for 5 years.
That standard isn't held any higher just because a property is a rental. 18th Edition is cited as its the current version which is easily referenced that's all.
It doesn't mean a property (for example) wired in red/black or with a plastic, split rcd consumer unit cannot achieve a satisfactory certificate and be used as a rental.
KT64DL only tester to use, testing is boring enough without hassle with your tester making it worse, Get in, do a good job get out. Tried a megger years ago not for me
Your letting the side down now using Ct1 😂😂😂😂 I think you need a new apprentice for your own sanity m8 👍👍👍👍👍
If you are doing R1R2 on circuit, defo should be disconnecting cpc from earth bar. In your case you didnt have paralel path, but you could easily have one at extremely low resistance. Say Immersion heater. Copper pipework could be near bond location ond cpc may not have any continuity but you would get a reading via bond cable if you dont disconnect cpc from earth bar. So depending on item if you dont do it properly you could be getting completely incorrect and false reading.
@nbundyelectrical - Nick, don’t go down the rabbit hole of second guessing yourself or your work. Something I have learned is that whilst it was fitted, installed according to the regs at the time. Ask yourself one important question. Does anything pose a danger by the current regs. Is there a risk of fire or death. If so, best practice would be to bring it up to the current regs. Client is covered, your arse is covered. Zero chance of any insurance claim, or worse, attending Court if something had seriously gone wrong and the finger is pointed firmly at your business. Be sure, be safe, don’t be sorry.
Shite tester
I always use the 'turn everything off' as an excuse to do the RCD test button ... press em all lol
And yes, PE is Hazardous Live... what the fuck megger
Giving a satisfactory to a Rewireable fuseboard no RCD is suicide and borderline negligence. Test to current regs but stipulate on the form that this is what you are doing. Regs get updated for reasons….safety reasons
Just because something doesn’t comply to current regs is not a reason to condemn an installation, because where do you stop? Should you insist on a replacement CCU because it has rewireable fuses? What about one with MCBs but no RCD? What about MCBs but RCDs on sockets only? What about plastic enclosures? What about installations that have pre-harmonised cables?
Yes, you should make notes/recommendations. Yes, you can recommend that the installation is tested more regularly i.e 2 or 3 year intervals to ensure it remains safe. But you can’t just decide that a CCU with rewireable fuses is an immediate failure, if it is being used correctly.
Oh dear 🤦🏻♂️
C3 for lack of RCD protection, talk to the client about the safety benefits of a modern DB, but the question you are answering with a PIR is whether the installation is safe for continued use. C2 the lack of RCD if sockets are being used to power outdoor equipment.
What would you do with a electric pop up toaster, it will not pass any electrical safety tests. But the can still sell them due to grandfather rights. A lot of the reqs are not retrospective or everything would have to be replaced with every new edition.
@@MightyGimp what if outdoor equipment is used with a plug-in RCD - does that mitigate?
I would never sign of a rewireable fuse board, yes they was classed safe at the time but so was using a canary in a mine, its lethal end off, upgrade for guarantee safety, satisfactory at the time of install shouldn't exist
First mate
Your are wrong for not pull the down lighters down you did, because you don't know if anyone interfered with them , so I would say your EICR is crap
*"You are wrong not to pull the down lighters down that you did"
Also calm down with the language sir
No he isn't an EICR does not mean examine everything only a random selection to cover a certain percentage of things at the tester's discretion. That is why you make notes on your EICR to say what you have inspected and why it is helpful to have the previous EICR to see what was inspected and to compare readings or highlight things that have have failed on a previous inspection been fixed and failed again (IE a socket behind a door getting cracked when door is flung open etc)
English please
I’d say your comment is crap. Rodent damage may have happened also BUT prior to an EICR the extent of the test is agreed. Soooooooooooo assuming it’s not a 100% test? Did you not know that?
When carrying out an EICR, damage to the fabric of the building should be avoided even if that limits inspection and testing. Pulling out downlights is risky, it can damage the ceiling.
1st
socket at 14.11 on the video, who would do that, it's much to close to the work top, EICR is to ensure it is still safe to keep in service so again it is upto each sparks to put there opinion on it and some do just see££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ , if it's just a loose fitting make it good , not costing the earth , and gives you a better rep than those who charge for every thing . Good work Nick
Nothing to do with Electrical regs, it breaks building regs , so it's a pass
@@robertburrows6612 Yeah i know was just politely saying only an idiot would do that